In team sports, u are competing against other players that are making moves to counter yours so it's important to get in some actual competition to test your plays and moves against live competition. In racing, that's not the case. It's basically a case of how fast can u run and how far? U can learn a lot about your horse in tandem workouts.

People are so enamored by the idea that u have to run 9f first. Why? So u can find out one race sooner if your horse can go 10f or not? U still don't know for sure. A 9f race is still not a 10f race.

Maybe I'm wrong though. That is always possible.

Is he not the best miler in the world?

That's not true. I do feel there is a difference and the lesser the horse, the more difficulty they will have switching. But I don't think it matters as much for the truly top horses. Do I know for a fact that Discreet Cat would win the Mile? Of course not. But I think that distance would have been better for him than either the Sprint or the Classic. Did anyone know Lure would run better on grass than he did on dirt? What about War Chant? Prized? Three examples of horses that went on to win BC races in either their first or second starts on the grass. And what about all of the horses that run on grass and then run well on dirt in their first start like Sakhee, Giant's Causeway, Arcangues, Johannesburg, Arazi, etc? People act like it's totally impossible for horses to go from one surface to the other. I'm not going to sit here and discount Discreet Cat's chances before he's even tried it. To me, that's sillier than suggesting he try it. I come from the school of thought that says first u find a horse's best distance then u find a class level that he fits at. Then u worry about the surface.

Lure's BC Mile in 1992 was his third career turf start.

There will be a slight twist in Derby Preps if you go the KY route (lol I said "KY Route" tee he he he he).

Because it will be Poly-track at both Turfway and Keeneland now instead of just at Turfway. For that horse that maybe finishes a consistent 2nd or 3rd on that stuff in Derby Preps... might get my "Street Sense" up for when he switches to the dirt hehe.

But recent history shows the way to go is Arkansas

I'm sorry.....you're suggesting that prepping in Arkansas is some sort of magic elixor?

L.......M.......F.......A.......O!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks. I thought it was his second after the Kelso.

He won an allowance race before losing the Kelso.

If u are a come from behind horse, it could be a big difference. If u are a speed horse that gets whatever position u want, I think it's less of an issue. Talking about field size. As for the whole running one or two turns, I think that it could be an issue. It is for a lot of horses. But I'm not going to automatically assume that a horse can't do it. It seems that u lean toward assuming that he can't while I lean toward assuming that he can. What I was doing was looking at the three options for him, the Sprint, Mile, and Classic. All three would have presented new challenges to him. I felt that the Mile would have been the easiest of the three. Not easy in an of itself but the easiest of the three.

Well like i said before, i think you're so far off that it almost funny. But I'll let more knowledgeable trainers weigh in on it and correct me if i'm wrong.

Horses, especially young horses, from what I know get a lot out of races, things they can't get working in tandem workouts. There is much more to it than being a case of how fast you can run. Their bodies have to get aclimated to the stresses and must build up the stamina part. I do not believe that is built in or can be gained from shorter races.

You ask why do people run 9F in order to know if their horses can run 10 F? You said 9F is still not 10F. Got some news for you, 9F is closer to 10F than 8F! There I said it, the great training mystery has been revealed. trainers race their young horses at incrementely longer distances. You're right though that running at 9F does not necesarily mean horses will do well at 10F. I think nobody knows that until they try it. With that said, the 9F preps are by far the most reliable indicator of what you can expect in the derby. I would never bet a horse to win the derby if it hadn't raced more than 8F.

Please give the examples of horses who have been trained according to your approach and have been succesfull.

VERY WELL PUT!:)

You wouldn't earn enough graded stake money to get in the gate with that schedule, unless you won all 3 of the SM, SV, and Swale.

The Private Terms (a 1 turn mile) hasn't produced a realistic starter for the Derby, ever, if I remember correctly all of the runners that have run in it. On top of that, I can't think of a SINGLE runner to hit the board in the Derby without a prep at two turns.

Sorry KG, but you're wayyyyy off base.

And to answer the question originally posted, I'd go to Arkansas. The progression in distance (8F, 8.5F, 9F) and the racing surface at Oaklawn appeals to me.

I almost forgot to post my 2 cents. Philcski......you couldn't have said it better.

Hey wait a minute here!! You said mine was WELL PUT. Now Phil's is better?:D

It's too bad that everyone is so into doing what the herd is doing these days. Before Barbaro did it, people were saying that a horse couldn't win the Derby off a 5-week layoff. But then it happened. I guarantee that if Neil Drysdale was on here before he ran Prized in the BC Turf, his first turf start, u all would have been telling him how dumb he was or how far off he is or how he has no comprehension, etc. I mean, the horse was good enough to beat Sunday Silence on the dirt just a few months earlier and now they were trying him on the grass? Just a few years ago, people were saying that Smarty Jones needed to be tested in the big races and that going the Arkansas route was not the way to get prepared. Now, many are saying it's the best way to go because of him and Afleet Alex. So many people in this industry are copycats and want to do what they've seen recently be successful. Tell people that u want to run a horse back in a week and they look at u crazy. Horses used to do it all the time. Don't tell me they can't anymore. It's not the horses of today that can't do the things that they used to do. It's the owners/trainers of today that don't have the courage to try them. They are worth so much money today that nobody takes the risk in trying to train them and race them ambitiously anymore. They just look for the safe routes. I could just imagine the comments that would be made on this thread if a horse blew out in 33 and change a couple of days before the Belmont like Risen Star did. I could just imagine the comments that would be made if a horse today was to run in the all three TC races...with races IN BETWEEN them. It's ok though. I don't mind all of the things u say about me. I just feel bad for u all that u have such limited vision and can't see the possibilities that are out there. The reason we don't see many great horses anymore aren't because the horses aren't great.....it's because so many people with limited vision won't allow them to be. Like Lava Man this year. I mean, why take a shot at history in the Arlington Million when u can take the safe route in the Pacific Classic? In two years, nobody will remember what Lava Man did this year. I've never understood why so many people are afraid to think and try things different.

I may not be a trainer but I've been around plenty of them. Some pretty good ones too. My ideas may be far off according to today's game. But that's because today's game is far off from the way the game used to be. And it used to be better.