BC Stunner: 2 days, 3 new races..

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Linny

Look at "07. After the top 3 finishers and Lava Man, were any of them truly legit G1, 10f horses?

I would contend that David Junior was a legitimate 10f horse (and George Washington ran a big race), the dirt experiment just went awry...but that will continue to happen with Euro horses because some of them will handle it wonderfully (Giant's Causeway, Sahkee...), and others like David Junior won't handle it.

I don't think it means they don't belong per se.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

I listed these before but do you really think a race comprised of the horses on this list would have been that terrible of a G1? And I don't think any of the other races would have been overly compromised by the loss of the horses listed below.

Discreet Cat
Silver Train
Badge of Silver
Sun King
Brother Derek
Lawyer Ron
Sharp Humor
Siren Lure
Wanderin Boy
Super Frolic
Mass Media
Commentator
Lewis Michael
Sir Greeley
War Front
It's No Joke
Magna Graduate
Papi Chullo
Straight Line
Awesome Twist

Pretty much....I do think it would have been a terrible Grade 1, especially considering what it would have done to two other Grade 1s being run that day.

There are some names on that list that barely belong out of claiming races.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Pretty much....I do think it would have been a terrible Grade 1, especially considering what it would have done to two other Grade 1s being run that day.

There are some names on that list that barely belong out of claiming races.

Apparently we haven't been watching the same "G1" races in the past couple years. I've seen far worse than that pass for a G1 and actually think it would be well above average for a G1. Yeah, it might have crippled the Cigar Mile which is a valid argument but I don't think it would have a major effect on the BC and would make for a solid betting race.

[blackthroatedwind]

First of all your list would have taken EIGHT horses out of other BC races.


Secondly, five competed in a $200K Grade 2 or 3 race earlier in the day, so I can't imagine how you could even suggest they belong in a Grade 1 championship race.

Thirdly, of the remaining seven, one was hurt ( Commentator )or he would have belonged in the my first grouping, Mass Media had barely competed in 2006, Sharp Humor had made his first start off an injury in a race restricted to NY Breds two weeks earlier and Sir Greeley was too busy sucking up for second in a race that collapsed on that very day in NY ( and was also coming off a layoff ).

That leaves my friend Wanderin Boy, who I am biased about, and while he might have been reasonable, I can't defend his being one of the main contendors in ANY championship race....Silver Train who won the BC Sprint in the prior year and yet did not defend that title so one could say he belongs in my initial category, and Discreet Cat....who I already said belonged. however, one could also argue that there were other BC races for him and he chose to simply sit out.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

First of all your list would have taken EIGHT horses out of other BC races.


Secondly, five competed in a $200K Grade 2 or 3 race earlier in the day, so I can't imagine how you could even suggest they belong in a Grade 1 championship race.

Thirdly, of the remaining seven, one was hurt ( Commentator )or he would have belonged in the my first grouping, Mass Media had barely competed in 2006, Sharp Humor had made his first start off an injury in a race restricted to NY Breds two weeks earlier and Sir Greeley was too busy sucking up for second in a race that collapsed on that very day in NY ( and was also coming off a layoff ).

That leaves my friend Wanderin Boy, who I am biased about, and while he might have been reasonable, I can't defend his being one of the main contendors in ANY championship race....Silver Train who won the BC Sprint in the prior year and yet did not defend that title so one could say he belongs in my initial category, and Discreet Cat....who I already said belonged. however, one could also argue that there were other BC races for him and he chose to simply sit out.

I guess I feel that losing those 8 horses from BC races would have had little to no effect on the BC program (and I'm well aware that BOS hit the board in his race) and that the addition of the Dirt Mile on the prior day would have made for two exciting days of racing which would have more than made up for the loss of those 8 horses. The funny thing is next time a Discreet Cat situation occurs like this year and the horse goes to the Dirt Mile everyone will blame the addition on the BC Dirt Mile when in reality the horse would have skipped the program if it were under the old scenario. Have they officially announced all of these races as G1 races? I wouldn't be opposed to them making the three additional races G2 although I doubt they would do that.

[Linny]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I would contend that David Junior was a legitimate 10f horse (and George Washington ran a big race), the dirt experiment just went awry...but that will continue to happen with Euro horses because some of them will handle it wonderfully (Giant's Causeway, Sahkee...), and others like David Junior won't handle it.

I don't think it means they don't belong per se.

I do think at a certain number of the Euros will still opt for the Classic. David Junior loves 10f but not dirt. Geo Washington did run well considering that he'd have been odds on in the Mile and the move to the Classic was a sporting attempt to duplicate the sensation of Giant's Causeway's game effort in defeat. There are a number of Euro's who prefer 10f to 12f and they may opt for the Classic over the turf.
Most of the weakening will be by US based owners.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Linny

Geo Washington did run well considering that he'd have been odds on in the Mile and the move to the Classic was a sporting attempt to duplicate the sensation of Giant's Causeway's game effort in defeat.

I wouldn't classify it as a " sporting attempt " at all. It was a monetary decision based on his potential increased value with a first or second place finish. Even a victory in the BC mile would have done little to increase his value.

If anything, one could argue they robbed one race of a potentially exciting performer to barely enhance another due to personal greed.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I wouldn't classify it as a " sporting attempt " at all. It was a monetary decision based on his potential increased value with a first or second place finish. Even a victory in the BC mile would have done little to increase his value.

If anything, one could argue they robbed one race of a potentially exciting performer to barely enhance another due to personal greed.

Not to mention a shot at the Sheiks.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I wouldn't classify it as a " sporting attempt " at all. It was a monetary decision based on his potential increased value with a first or second place finish. Even a victory in the BC mile would have done little to increase his value.

If anything, one could argue they robbed one race of a potentially exciting performer to barely enhance another due to personal greed.

I guess I just don't feel that George Washington had a whole lot to prove going a mile on the grass -- the connections obviously wanted to improve his value as a stallion, but at the same time it added intrigue to the event.

Adding the world's best miler to America's richest race wasn't such a bad thing for the race itself.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

Not to mention a shot at the Sheiks.

Agreed...though one could argue that their malevolence was in some ways also sporting in this case.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I guess I just don't feel that George Washington had a whole lot to prove going a mile on the grass -- the connections obviously wanted to improve his value as a stallion, but at the same time it added intrigue to the event.

Adding the world's best miler to America's richest race wasn't such a bad thing for the race itself.

I guess if it added intrigue to the race for you then I can't argue with you...but for me he was a total toss and I never even thought about him at any point.

Sort of like Lava Man.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Agreed...though one could argue that their malevolence was in some ways also sporting in this case.

Well I sure wish they would battle it out more frequently on the track than at the auctions!

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

Well I sure wish they would battle it out more frequently on the track than at the auctions!

That would be nice though I imagine they must in Europe. Neither one of them sent their best horses here in the past and Godolphin has only recently started to seriously focus on the US.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I guess if it added intrigue to the race for you then I can't argue with you...but for me he was a total toss and I never even thought about him at any point.

Sort of like Lava Man.

I didn't like him to win, but in single-race exotics I thought he was worth a look in the bottom spots.

In retrospect I don't think he ran a terrible race at all -- 3 lengths from hitting the board in America's richest race. Even with no dirt experience, I think he deserved to be there more than half the field did. Their experiment had a better chance of winning than Flower Alley, Lava Man, Perfect Drift, Lawyer Ron, Sun King, Suave, etc.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I didn't like him to win, but in single-race exotics I thought he was worth a look in the bottom spots.

In retrospect I don't think he ran a terrible race at all -- 3 lengths from hitting the board in America's richest race. Even with no dirt experience, I think he deserved to be there more than half the field did. Their experiment had a better chance of winning than Flower Alley, Lava Man, Perfect Drift, Lawyer Ron, Sun King, Suave, etc.

There are different discussions here, and I would not say he had no right to be in the race, but to me all that matters is relative chances of winning versus betting odds and regardless of outcome George Washington was a horse who's odds were significantly lower than his actual chances of winning.

I don't think he had a better chance in relation to odds of winning the race than a number of horses you mentioned. To me that is what really matters.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

1.)regardless of outcome George Washington was a horse who's odds were significantly lower than his actual chances of winning

2.)I don't think he had a better chance in relation to odds of winning the race than a number of horses you mentioned. To me that is what really matters.

1.) I agree completely.

2.) I disagree completely because I think that all of the horses I listed had zero chance of winning, and zero chance of making a case for them winning -- so they could have been 100-1 and they still would have been overbet as far as the win pool goes. That's just how I see it...I could not, before the race, envision any of those listed horses coming home first. There were some longshots that I had on my tickets that I believed had a miniscule outside chance, but none of the horses I listed.

I think it's mostly off-topic in the thread anyway, which is my fault -- but I guess I'm just legitimately interested in which horses on the list you felt had a better chance to win in relation to their odds, because I couldn't see any of them winning.

[blackthroatedwind]

The " zero chance " arguments are not only indefensible but they are in direct contrast to the discussion at hand.

Sorry, but just because George Washington fits into the unknown category that doesn't mean that reasonable arguments that could have been made for at least a few of the horses you mentioned ( whether you, me, or anyone " liked " them ).

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

The " zero chance " arguments are not only indefensible but they are in direct contrast to the discussion at hand.

Sorry, but just because George Washington fits into the unknown category that doesn't mean that reasonable arguments that could have been made for at least a few of the horses you mentioned ( whether you, me, or anyone " liked " them ).

ok, so 'zero chance' was a bad way to put it because of course no horse ever had 'zero chance' but i guess i'm trying to say that i don't think that the odds of any of those horses were good in relation to their chance of winning.

so if i can take the discussion a bit off course, maybe i'm not getting what you're saying -- because in handicapping, if i don't like a horse and don't give a horse any chance to win, then their odds are necessarily going to be lower in relation to what i believe is their chance of winning -- so doesn't it always matter when you wager and assess odds in any given race, whether or not you "like" a horse?

[blackthroatedwind]

Horses need to be evaluated in a number of ways and their importance in the win slot is only part of the equation. Also, while theoretically we are only supposed to be " liking " or using horses who's betting odds reflect positively on their actual chances, I don't think we either actually do this or are anywhere near as good as we would like to think we are at evaluating this.

It's a big discussion....but it's also post time at Gulfstream.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Horses need to be evaluated in a number of ways and their importance in the win slot is only part of the equation. Also, while theoretically we are only supposed to be " liking " or using horses who's betting odds reflect positively on their actual chances, I don't think we either actually do this or are anywhere near as good as we would like to think we are at evaluating this.

It's a big discussion....but it's also post time at Gulfstream.

fair enough -- thanks.