I dunno.

I see Lookin at Lucky differently.

He stumbled in The Rebel on the Oaklawn surface and still finished strong to win.

He was stopped and steadied on the Santa Anita surface and still rallied to catch 3rd.

He had a unanimously accepted horrible trip on sloppy dirt in the Kentucky Derby and still was fighting and closing in the stretch.

He then goes to the Pimlico surface and is tested in a stretch fight and rallies to pull away for the win.

He's 7-1-1 in 10 career starts with a laundry list of 9 G-1's and G-2's on his 10 race resume.


He's 3 years old this month and is already a winner of over $2,000,000.

I think he's pretty good.

He's a grinder that will win his share of races, I haven't seen anything yet from him to say here is a horse that will go on to the top of the male division this year or against his elders. Sure I would be happy if I owned him, he's already been a great investment to his connections for a okay horse.

That might be the case that this is a mediocre bunch but its not like Lucky got up in some head bob. The winner sustained a long and powerful run 4 wide against a strong inside bias. What could have possibly changed the result besides maybe the 11 or the 8 running alone uncontested on the rail?

There was no magical seam, no rail card and no pace help. The winner wins that race a majority of the time.

I love how early criticisms on LAL included him being too fast for his own good.

Now he's slow and a grinder.

I don't get the love for Jackson Bend nor do I get the dislike for LAL. They are kinda similar horses, except LAL is the better of the two.

Horses dont run against the track, they run against other horses. The rail 'bias' seemed to help First Dude but LaL shouldnt get credit for beating an inferior opponent who was aided by some neblous bias. While the rail seemed like a good place to be the path taken by LaL wasnt necessarily a negative. Lookin at Lucky got a clean trip and was simply the best of a bad bunch.

Looking at lucky is far more accomplished than good

2010 features a historically bad group of older 'handicap' horses in a millennium that had hardly distinguished itself for older horses. Yet I dont think any of the three year olds we've seen so far will be able to capitalize on that.

What could have been had Summer Bird never been hurt last year.

i agree. someone had to win all that money. they don't cut the purse because the horses don't run fast.

He finishes a well beaten third in last year's Preakness IMO with the same trip fighting it out for the minors with Musketman, that's the reality of it when analysing the type of field that ran yesterday.

There is something to be said for a horse like LAL, he's willing, keeps to his task and doesnt quit when he gets the lead. The thing to be said about LAL is we wish we had him in our barn.

This is almost like complimenting Rachel. :p

no doubt but these are classic races therefore we hold the winners to a higher standard

Biases and bad setups have been instrumental in good/great horses losing to fields they towered over. Your 'perspective' is exactly what's wrong about the game. This is the good-ole-boy, cut-'em-and-put-'em-on-the-outside mentality: if they're good enough they'll get the job done. Forget about what it costs a horse to do all that extra work. Maybe a better approach would be to teach these horses how to 'handle' being ridden more efficiently.

So, getting the worst of it tripwise, in terms of ground covered and timing of move AND doing it against a (perceived) bias is not something that's noteworthy for you, huh?:rolleyes:

Good thing you're training rather than trying to win betting.

TFM is unusually lucid this weekend.

Give me a break. Looking at Lucky hardly had some horrible trip. Sure he lost ground and perhaps the rail was better than usual but the three crows he beat are still crows. While he was the only one of the 4 that were close at the wire to not be on the rail for a lot of the trip, he is simply better than the others. Had he gotten a more favorable setup he most likely would have won by a greater margin but some of us understand that that ideal setup wasnt available. Your cookie cutter approach to how every race is supposed to be run amuses me despite the fact that I obviously lack your sophisticated knowledge. Surely your time would be better spent devising tax strategies to shield the millions you must win based on your keen observations? Maybe there is somekind of Turbo Trackus software you could develop?

I guess I am, no doubt she and maybe Mine That Bird ran the better races last year.