Corinthian or Bernardini

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Cunningham Racing

The only real problem about your idea that I see (and its not a bad idea...no ideas are perfect), How do you give them the option to see the post parade to check horses physically to see if they are washed out. etc. if there is only one track to view at a time?

You could maybe have secondary screens that are transmitting the feed without the audio for the next one or two races that are on deck so to speak.
Of course if you really are into all the details you might want the more traditional venue where you can just focus in on a track.

I just thought it would be a neat idea if you could just walk up and experience a steady stream of racing action for and hour or so. It would be exhausting but perhaps fun for a lot of people. And I think a key point for new people is that it comes to you and you don't have to look around for different screens that often have no audio.

I also hate when the races are in synch for several tracks so you have to chose one.

Originally Posted by Cunningham Racing

But remember Mike, we are talking numbers here....Bernardini was one good one from 89 like you mentioned....how many horses that didn't pan out have you bought?...Everybody remembers the Wonder Lady Anne Ls of the world, but I would rather predicate my record on the ratio of good horses I bought to bad horses....Additionally, I find it much harder to pick out yearlings that will be successful...Picking out horses that have already displayed talent and then spending hundreds of thousands for them isn't exactly rocket science IMO....Hell, Medaglia d'Oro got like a 100 Beyer for breaking his maiden first time out for Dave Vance at Oaklawn....he showed promise and then went from an average trainer to a great trainer and even got better....I do like Reid's style though...he has made some good purchases..I'll give him that, and so have the McKathan bros....but it is FAR more harder to pick out yearlings....

For starters, I could never spend over $100K of somebody's money and hold a straight face doing so....it is just not my style.....BTW, don't take the 'used-car' thing as a slant on you guys....I simply just said that I would feel that way for some reason....most bloodstock agents don't have the greatest of reps..

Medag broke his maiden in his 2nd start, not his first. And I don't pick out yearlings, strictly horses who have run. I may aid somene in securing a yearling(put two people together) but I do not look at them or select them. I am not qualified to do so.

Originally Posted by Cunningham Racing

OOOHHHHHH!!, I get why you're so bitter about new stallions now.....I should have seen this agenda from a million miles away.....know wonder you hate new stallions..BUT, to say they are not important is flat wrong.....savvy horse players will argue that they are because I know...I play pedigrees all the time...that is why they are ofered in the Form as a stat and that is why you here analysts on TVG, etc...talking about horses and mentioning there family ALL THE TIME when handicapping races......now I see you r angle....you are bitter about horses retiring early and that is why you despise them when they go to stud....I see clearly now

I dont hate new stallions. I hate the practice of taking horses off the track and depriving horse racing fans the pleasure of watching them RUN. And that, overall, is the bottom line; RUNNING. Not some archane dosage detail that is based upon very spurious data that is supposed to predict ability on a specific type of track. Honest to God, I hear and read people declaring that a horse should do really well on this yielding turf because his mother won a Grade I race on the turf in just these identical yeilding conditions. Its like saying I should be able to run in extreme heat because my mom once chased down and caught a pig on the farm while running 100 meters in the middle of the summer.
I would rather know how the horse that is actually running the race has done on yielding turf. I dont want to hear about his second cousin.
Now if someone had actually looked at a horse's hoof for instance, and noticed said horse possessed an exceptionally wide hoof and the horse ran well in conditions in which an exceptionally wide hoof is a distinct advantage (Im not sure what this would be) and that one particular offspring from this horse had an exceptionally wide hoof and was indeed fast... then I might take notice when the offspring ran under conditions where an exceptionally wide hoof was an advantage. BUT... I still would rather have SEEN that the offspring had already demonstrated the aforementioned ability ON THE TRACK.

I dont see what is so difficult to understand about the above. And all I am saying is if one really understands genetics and the randomness involved, then one is humbled when faced with the daunting task of trying to predict offspring success on the track without having even watch them run.
I also understand "breed the best, with the best, and hope for the best". I just put a lot of emphasis on the word, HOPE.
Keep em on the track and running.

And Mr. Cunningham I would be more than happy to share with you what I know about genetics so you to could see the incredible random nature of predicting something as difficult as running. Honestly, Breeders appear to me to be trying to please a destructive "give it to me now" market force rather than producing horses that will actually run and not break down. Somebody is gonna eventually break lose from this practice and produce some gems that might stick around. Not precocious pieces of glass.

Coat color, coat coarsness, etc... some well known obvious physical traits are a piece of cake to try and predict compared to running. And some obvious physical traits are very difficult to reproduce. And there are very clear reasons for this. We know enough about genetics to know how difficult it is. This is not Punnett square genetics that people played with in Middle School.

[Gander]

Dont bother Pat. I doubt he'd understand the language you speak in. Just dont ever forget hes a savvy player. That and $1.82 will get you a coffee at Starbucks.

Originally Posted by Gander

Dont bother Pat. I doubt he'd understand the language you speak in. Just dont ever forget hes a savvy player. That and $1.82 will get you a coffee at Starbucks.

Actually I enjoy reading Cunningham posts. He did post about a first timer he had already seen and predicted the horse would run a monster race and the horse came through. A big favorite, but he was still on the mark.

[Gander]

A big favorite, first time starter, run a monster race....and somebody predicted it...woo hoo.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by pgardn

And Mr. Cunningham I would be more than happy to share with you what I know about genetics so you to could see the incredible random nature of predicting something as difficult as running. Honestly, Breeders appear to me to be trying to please a destructive "give it to me now" market force rather than producing horses that will actually run and not break down. Somebody is gonna eventually break lose from this practice and produce some gems that might stick around. Not precocious pieces of glass.

Coat color, coat coarsness, etc... some well known obvious physical traits are a piece of cake to try and predict compared to running. And some obvious physical traits are very difficult to reproduce. And there are very clear reasons for this. We know enough about genetics to know how difficult it is. This is not Punnett square genetics that people played with in Middle School.

I would love to learn about that and I can't wait until someone breeds a horse that doesn't break down...

That's why I like Mr. Livingston so much (by El Prado.) He ran sound until he was 7 AND he's a stallion... can't really beat that.