Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The horse never raced past June of his 3 year old year and this is good? I find it hilarious that Afleet Alex is the best example of a sucessful "tough" training program. The horse broke down. He did not have a long career. What exactly am I missing here? We arent talking about his sucess we are talking about the durability of the modern day horse and horses that make 5 or 6 starts at 3 and break down are poor examples, arent they?

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I also have never understood the great amount of praise that was heaped on Ritchey for his methods when they didn't produce anything different than what we see from plenty of others and that's a 3yo champion that doesn't complete his season. Whether the injury was a result of his training or whether it was totally a fluke thing is irrelevant at this point. The horse still only raced 12 times and was done by June. People always talk about guys like Lukas, Baffert, and Zito but their horses usually last longer than that.

In my opinion, these horses today are different. They can't be trained the same way that horses of yesteryear were. They can't be raced the same way either. But at the same time, they probably don't need to be babied to the extent that they are. I think that's the challenge; finding that middle ground. Knowing when to push the throttle and when to back off. I think that if more horses had their throttles pushed earlier and more often as 2yo's, they would be better off for it as 3yo's and 4yo's. But I think it's silly to make obvious changes to the breed and still ask them to do the same things that the past horses did. Would it make sense to start breeding 5'7" guys for the NBA and still expect them to dunk like Michael Jordan and Vince Carter on a 10' basket?

Originally Posted by Sightseek

LOL, if Lukas had a horse win the Sanford that impressively he wouldn't have stuck around long enough to win the Belmont.

Originally Posted by freddymo

Chuck my thoughts are pretty simple. Concolour has produced a few gals which have been or will be bred. I just want to know what breed are these going to be the old TB's or the new TB's? Moreover should we or should the future trainer/s expect to get fragile offspring to train or hardy stock that you can expect to run often and stay relatively sound? Looking forward to this answer..lol

Originally Posted by Sightseek

So you don't buy into the theory that it was the stumble in the Preakness that started the injury?

Originally Posted by freddymo

Your missing 25 million dollars other then that you are spot on. The horse was retired because to stop with him for 6 months was fiscally impossible. The horse could have made it back to the races and most likely would have been ok. You never know if they come 100% back but it was certainly possible. BUT 150 mares where in line on the farm. AND the trainer must be applauded and rewarded for his outstanding efforts. You win 6 graded stakes and get a horse syndicated for huge money and I wonder if you will be happy and feel good about the job. i know one person who will be thrilled...Your Bank Manager

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Yeah cause Lukas certainly sucks at winning 2yo races and classic races. My mistake.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

All that is fine but we are talking about durability and training methods and AA is not a good example because we have no idea what he would have become afterwards. he may have become the next Funny Cide...

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

All that is fine but we are talking about durability and training methods and AA is not a good example because we have no idea what he would have become afterwards. he may have become the next Funny Cide...

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Dont you think that of the thousands of "modern" trainers that one of them would have tested your theory? I always find it amusing what we "modern trainers" are doing wrong. My barn is open to anyone who wants to actually see what it is to train horses as opposed to those who just theorize what we should do.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

All that is fine but we are talking about durability and training methods and AA is not a good example because we have no idea what he would have become afterwards. he may have become the next Funny Cide...

Originally Posted by freddymo

As far as Concolours grand foals I would assume they have to be the old TB stock as surely the old TB stock doesn't give way in one generation.

Originally Posted by zippyneedsawin

How do you look up the workouts for a horse that ran in 1946?!? :zz:

Originally Posted by Sightseek

So you don't buy into the theory that it was the stumble in the Preakness that started the injury?

Originally Posted by freddymo

Up until the colt got injured the regiment was succeeding. I guess you could argue that the training method could have been the reason he got injured. I would suggest that would be impossible to prove either way. The horse made 12 starts before halfway thru his 3 year old year. 6 graded wins and the TC campaign. By today's standard he was a war horse.
Now throw in the untimely injury and the likilihood that he would not have made mor then 3 more starts and I think he was fairly durable.

As far as Concolours grand foals I would assume they have to be the old TB stock as surely the old TB stock doesn't give way in one generation.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Up until they get injured every type of training works depending on the horse. I thought we were talking about the theory that harder training prevented injuries like this? Of course that theory is wrong but at least it gives us fodder to talk about other than mud at Saratoga tomorrow.

Originally Posted by freddymo

No Chuck winning 4 G1's and 2 G2's is not working it's excelling.. Paying a trainer to work a horse and having them start a few times and picking up a few checks isnt winning on the highest level. Here I am applauding the trainer and his methods only for you to be suggesting any training with any training techinques would have had equal success. Frankly I give the Ritchie a lot more credit! BTW I never liked Afleet Alex and hate Lemonade unless gin is in it.lol

Originally Posted by freddymo

No Chuck winning 4 G1's and 2 G2's is not working it's excelling.. Paying a trainer to work a horse and having them start a few times and picking up a few checks isnt winning on the highest level. Here I am applauding the trainer and his methods only for you to be suggesting any training with any training techinques would have had equal success. Frankly I give the Ritchie a lot more credit! BTW I never liked Afleet Alex and hate Lemonade unless gin is in it.lol

Originally Posted by dalakhani

FreddyMo-

I know this question is purely speculative but...what do you think this particular horse would have accomplished if given to Frankel? Mott? Zito?

Do you think he still wins those classics and graded stakes? Do you think he has a longer career?

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

He isnt the most accomplished horse in history or anything. There have been horses in recent times that have been trained in far different, and less stressful manners that have accomplished more. So what training methodology is correct? None, it may depend on the horse. Which gets me back to my initial thought which was the theory that the reason that "modern" horses are not as durable and able to stand up to incredible work loads has little to do with modern training techniques and lots to do with modern horses. You can absolutely give credit to Ritchey for accomplishing a lot with this horse but his methods of training do not produce more durable horses and AA is the prime example. I just find it hard to believe that if Pletcher or Lukas had trained this horse they wouldnt be subject to scorn for him breaking down yet Ritchey is praised for the same thing.

Originally Posted by freddymo

Pure spectulation but..............Frankel would have passed on the derby and won Preakness then it would be back to the bench for a solid second in the Travers and a BCClassic win.. Mott would have had him ready for the Jim Dandy and or the Secretriat at Arlington.. Mr Z would have had triple crown champ second in the Travers and a late closing third in the BCC.. All three would have him booked to 150 mares with Zito's fee being 100k Mott's 12500 and Frankel 25k book full and closed..lol

Originally Posted by freddymo

If he was the most accomplished horse in history you would have nothing to say other then congrats. Pletcher killed more horses then Hitler killed people.. D Wayne is legend unfortunately once his go south they head to Chile with no return flight. Not sure how a solid medicator like Ritchie is even mentioned inn the same Breath but he does deserve all the credit for winning a lot of money for his owners and himself.. Whatever the f he did for whatever reason it worked!!

Originally Posted by Danzig

why would frankel have passed on the derby? reason why i ask is that he ran empire maker there on a bum foot, so he obviously is not immune to derby fever.

Originally Posted by freddymo

I am assuming Afleet Alex wasn't a Juddemonte

Originally Posted by Danzig

so you think it was juddmonte who pushed the issue with empire maker?
but why would frankel have passed on the derby? alex came damn close to winning the thing.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Interestingly enough, Lukas who trains horses very hard by modern standards (rarely backs off) is demonized because of this. Yet we are quite often told that we are too easy on our horses.

Originally Posted by miraja2

This debate has become tiresome.
I want to hear DrugS discuss whether or not he thinks Assault just won the Derby because of his rail-skimming, Street Sense/Calvin Borrel-type trip.

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I read through a copy of Hall of Fame trainer Preston Burch's 55 year old book 'Training Thoroughbred Horses'

If released today - I believe the title would now be called 'How to kill thoroughbred horses with old fashioned methods from pre medication days'