Smarty Jones Classic - Page 8

#**141** 03-20-2007, 04:23 PM

Just to add to Blackthroated wonderful story of Bold Forbes:

Looks like at 2 he won the Saratoga Special S. (G2), Tremont S., and Clasico Dia de Los Padres (PR). I'm guessing he won the latter race earlier and then came to the Saratoga meet.

At 3, he won the San Jacinto S. (G2) and the Bay Shore S. (G3) prior to running/winning in the Wood. I dont know if San J. is in P.R. or what, maybe went back there to run..?

Then, after the TC...

he Ran 2ND San Miguel S.
and 3RD Vosburgh H. (G2) and San Vicente S. (G3)

Im guessing these were after the T.C. Hunter's book doesnt mention them and the Pedigree site doesnt specify, since Hunter mentions the San Jacinto and Bay Shore as preceeding the Wood I would guess the latter three were after the Wood. HUnter implies he was retired at 3.

He finished with 18 Starts: 13 - 1 - 4, $546,536; very nice.

Samarta · #**142** 03-20-2007, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

It was packed, no doubt about it, but I don't believe any of those attendance figures. And, I am including other TC venues as well.

While I'll go ahead and answer the question "no, I didn't count every person that came through the gate"....I was at Belmont that day and all I can say is it was mobbed. The next year when Afleet Alex won it looked like a ghost town compared to the '04 race. I'm not sure why you wouldn't believe the attendance figures though....everyone that pays is accounted for. If anything the reported figures are actually lower than actuals because of comps. And there are a lot of those at the TC races.

blackthroatedwind · #**143** 03-20-2007, 04:30 PM

Thanks. I must have been wrong about the Special being his first NY start as the Tremont, I believe, has always preceded Saratoga. I have a lot of those charts and will take a look.

Yes! He won the Tremont on July 24th by five lengths over Iron Bit in 1:09 2/5. It was another nine lengths back to the third finisher. He paid $5.40 as the second choice to Iron Bit who was 4:5.

#**144** 03-20-2007, 04:31 PM

Q: Did he win all of those as a front runner? He must have been like War Emblem on a steroid program or something...

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

And, by the way, calling it the largest on site attendance in New York Sports is a skewed approach, as while leaving out the fact that the announced attendance was a lie, it is only a " record " because of the amount of people Belmont is able to hold as opposed to other sports arenas....

Well isnt that true of any attendance record???

ANd it was a record for Belmont, therefore it certainly means something in terms of the history of racing at that venue. Right? I mean the above reasoning cannot diminish the record in terms of BEL's history right?

It sure seemed like a lot that day in 2004, I was there in 2002, and 2003 and the crowd seemed noticeably bigger for 2004. The bathroom lines while even more crowded now had female guests, which is always upsetting when you are holding your pecker in your hands.

They announced it as 110,000+ I believe, not 120,000.

It was also a different type of crowd, down near the rail, we chanted "FUnny Cide, Funny Cide.." as he got to the track but w/ Smarty it seemed like a foregone conclusion we sort of were just expecting the TC and wanted to be there. The tension wasnt nearly so much..

blackthroatedwind · #**145** 03-20-2007, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samarta

While I'll go ahead and answer the question "no, I didn't count every person that came through the gate"....I was at Belmont that day and all I can say is it was mobbed. The next year when Afleet Alex won it looked like a ghost town compared to the '04 race. I'm not sure why you wouldn't believe the attendance figures though....everyone that pays is accounted for. If anything the reported figures are actually lower than actuals because of comps. And there are a lot of those at the TC races.

There are two things I know for sure.....it was obscenely crowded and the attendance figure was fabricated. If it makes you happy to not believe me then feel free to go right ahead.

I hope you were able to find something else of interest in the thread, and considering the foolishness you spouted recently about Round Pond, which you never revisited after she lost, I am surprised you have the gall to pursue this ridiculous argument with me. On the other hand....very little surprises me with some posters here.

randallscott35 · #**146** 03-20-2007, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by easy goer

Q: Did he win all of those as a front runner? He must have been like War Emblem on a steroid program or something...

Well isnt that true of any attendance record???

ANd it was a record for Belmont, therefore it certainly means something in terms of the history of racing at that venue. Right? I mean the above reasoning cannot diminish the record in terms of BEL's history right?

It sure seemed like a lot that day in 2004, I was there in 2002, and 2003 and the crowd seemed noticeably bigger for 2004. The bathroom lines while even more crowded now had female guests, which is always upsetting when you are holding your pecker in your hands.

They announced it as 110,000+ I believe, not 120,000.

It was also a different type of crowd, down near the rail, we chanted "FUnny Cide, Funny Cide.." as he got to the track but w/ Smarty it seemed like a foregone conclusion we sort of were just expecting the TC and wanted to be there. The tension wasnt nearly so much..

120139 in attendance at Belmont Park that day---

mes5107 · #**147** 03-20-2007, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by randallscott35

120139 in attendance at Belmont Park that day---

I'm trying to understand why NYRA, or whoever reports the attendance, would flat out lie about the attendance. There are rotating gate counters at all of the entrances. Perhaps 20,000+ went out to their cars and came back in during the race and it skewed the numbers, but why would somebody look at a 90,000 attendance, and say "That's not right, let's add 30,000."?

randallscott35 · #**148** 03-20-2007, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mes5107

I'm trying to understand why NYRA, or whoever reports the attendance, would flat out lie about the attendance. There are rotating gate counters at all of the entrances. Perhaps 20,000+ went out to their cars and came back in during the race and it skewed the numbers, but why would somebody look at a 90,000 attendance, and say "That's not right, let's add 30,000."?

I don't know I wasn't at that one b/c of the weather and the crowd....But last year felt like more than the 60 something they announced. It was very crowded where I was and the people were obnoxious and drunk....These idiots are not fans, they are a bunch of drunks who ruin big days.

blackthroatedwind · #**149** 03-20-2007, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mes5107

I'm trying to understand why NYRA, or whoever reports the attendance, would flat out lie about the attendance. There are rotating gate counters at all of the entrances. Perhaps 20,000+ went out to their cars and came back in during the race and it skewed the numbers, but why would somebody look at a 90,000 attendance, and say "That's not right, let's add 30,000."?

Most tracks most likely lie about their attendance on big days to make it appear to the others in the industry that they are doing better at drawing people to their tracks than they are.

Does this really surprise you considering the overall industry? If it does....wait until we tell you what really goes on at the yearling sales!

sumitas · #**150** 03-20-2007, 05:11 PM

one word---Birdstone

mes5107 · #**151** 03-20-2007, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Most tracks most likely lie about their attendance on big days to make it appear to the others in the industry that they are doing better at drawing people to their tracks than they are.

Does this really surprise you considering the overall industry? If it does....wait until we tell you what really goes on at the yearling sales!

If that is indeed the case, I would think that lying about attendance on an "off" day would be far more productive. Belmont was doing something on this day in particular that no other track can replicate. Lying about the attendance this day offers no incentive. Also, while drawing people to the tracks is nice, the handle is the number they look at.

paisjpq · #**152** 03-20-2007, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mes5107

If that is indeed the case, I would think that lying about attendance on an "off" day would be far more productive. Belmont was doing something on this day in particular that no other track can replicate. Lying about the attendance this day offers no incentive. Also, while drawing people to the tracks is nice, the handle is the number they look at.

they probably do lie about attendence all the time...they just don't claim new attendance records...because then they would be found out.

mes5107 · #**153** 03-20-2007, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paisjpq

they probably do lie about attendence all the time...they just don't claim new attendance records...because then they would be found out.

If this does indeed happen, who are they kidding? When you have a business, the main thing is the bottom line. Falsifying attendance figures, while it may look like you are doing better to other tracks, doesn't help you one bit. I'd rather have accurate numbers to look at while making my business plan than to sort through phantom figures.

blackthroatedwind · #**154** 03-20-2007, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mes5107

If this does indeed happen, who are they kidding? When you have a business, the main thing is the bottom line. Falsifying attendance figures, while it may look like you are doing better to other tracks, doesn't help you one bit. I'd rather have accurate numbers to look at while making my business plan than to sort through phantom figures.

You are not wrong. However, explaining a lot of things many racetracks do, in a logical manner, is a futile chase.

paisjpq · #**155** 03-20-2007, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

You are not wrong. However, explaining a lot of things many racetracks do, in a logical manner, is a futile chase.

plus, would it really matter if attendence figures were off as long as handle is accurate?

blackthroatedwind · #**156** 03-20-2007, 05:33 PM

Only for misguided bragging rights. As usual, racetracks have a distorted sense of what's important.

Danzig · #**157** 03-20-2007, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

thanks for the answer. it looks like there will never be another derby winner in the HOF.
Speaking of great ones. Bob fox is up next talking about Phar Lap and the Diva from Austrailia. should be interesting

that's life. not like all every derby winner ever is automatically granted a berth. there are no doubt a LOT more derby winners who aren't enshrined then are, nor should they be based on one win. it's hall of fame, not hall of what may have been if....

King Glorious · #**158** 03-20-2007, 06:53 PM

I'm just glad that there is a King Glorious Stakes. Nothing else even matters. Oh yeah, Smarty Jones deserves to be and will UNDOUBTEDLY be a first ballot hall of famer.

blackthroatedwind · #**159** 03-20-2007, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I'm just glad that there is a King Glorious Stakes. Nothing else even matters. Oh yeah, Smarty Jones deserves to be and will UNDOUBTEDLY be a first ballot hall of famer.

We should bet on that.

King Glorious · #**160** 03-20-2007, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

We should bet on that.

Lest u think that I disagree with what u have said on this thread, I don't. I think that the sense of history is totally lost on today's fans and that it doesn't make much sense that a Smarty Jones can get in while a horse like Manila sits on the sidelines. But, that's the way it is today. I think several horses of today will get in that maybe shouldn't. I don't think Smarty is in that group though. I think he deserves it.