I would have tossed Barbaro based on two preps if that was indeed what occurred prior to the derby. It did not. He still ran 3 preps in 06. If history is any indicator of past success in the Derby it is essential to have the 3 preps. Not to say it will not change in the coming years...but for now it is a proven theory of foundation building to win the Derby.

I posted earlier and I will repeat it...ask Bob Baffert what he felt Point Given was lacking after not winning the Derby? A third prep race! He did not have the foundation with only two preps. Hit the brick wall down the stretch did he not? Foundation Foundation Foundation...chant it with me now!!!

Went on after the Derby (3rd prep we will call it) and destroyed all competition. We should have easily witnessed a Triple crown winner but we did not. Do what you want come May 5th..but it will be an interesting thread when the race is complete to look back at figure who is right and who is wrong on historical trends of Derby winners.

Java OUT

If Barbaro ran on December 31st instead of January 1st would you have tossed him?

oh yeah.....for sure. he would have only had two starts at 3 in that case, which means he would have no foundation at all. if that race had been on the 31st barbaro would have completely fallen apart in the last eigth and finished 12th.
also, horses that win the derby have rarely run on december 31st. it is known as the "new year's eve curse." why do you think matz waited until the first to run him. he is a clever bugger that matz.

really? I may be mistaken, but I thought Baffert said he wouldn't have changed PG's training leading up to the derby. I'm not disagreeing with the idea that 3 preps is a good idea, I just don't think a horse should be completely tossed based on it.

I don't. Is there a rule you have to? ;>)

Do you think using dosage and other breeding info is going to give you more info than those who are close to the 1st time starters have? There's always inside info, but it's most dangerous, and IMO insurmountable, for 1st-time-starters.

--Dunbar

Inside information is usually unavailable to most of us, breeding and dosage aren't. I'd love to know what every first timer's connections know prior to wagering...trends can tell you a lot (trainer's record with that owner, with first timers etc.) but otherwise, you are on your own...breeding and dosage MAY help!

Pretty much agree with the exception of the Derby and some BC races (for foreign horses...example will a horse running on grass in Europe take to dirt?). In the Derby, you have a lot of horses who have never faced each other...breeding (RAN and other factors) and dosage can help! Belmont also...so few 12 furlong dirt races in the US, breeding can often provide a clue!

Well... I don't pay attention to dosage for most races, but I do look at the pedigree on first time starters. Let's say there's a Smart Strike or a Lemon Drop Kid on the weeds for the first time... I can promise you that I'll give that horse a second look based upon their 'turfy' pedigree. Sorry, but I find the whole pedigree angle fascinating. I agree that once a horse has had a few starts, you can't really base anything on their pedigrees, but how many of these horses have run 10 panels in a race before the Kentucky Derby? You don't think their pedigree has ANY bearing at all on how far they can go? I do.

Well, breeding will tell you a lot about surfaces....Giant's Causeway wasn't a surprise in the BCC because we pretty much knew the dirt would be no problem. The best horse doesn't always win any race, from maiden to BCC...again, tools are just that, part of a very large and complex puzzle. Handicappers have always looked to breeding...off tracks, grass etc. The fact that no winner of the BCJ has won the Derby isn't a jinx, it's a fact! There must be reasons...among the possible ones are early development and difficulty with subsequent prep scheduling. Bottom line...these angles are useful and speak for themselves...maybe this year Curlin will win and the 125 year gap since the last winner who didn't race at 2 will be no more as well as the 89 year gap since a winner had less than 5 starts...if you want to bet the farm on Curlin though, I personally think you'd want to at least be aware of those facts!

Skewed data in my book, the Derby has been run exactly how many times compared to the BCJ? 131 to 22

I agree this stuff is fun to look at but it's kind of narrow sighted. First time I saw it Funny Cide won, made me think well exactly how many geldings have ran in the Derby compared to colts. I'm sure if the ratio was reversed we'd have #5 as beware of colts in the derby.

without reading this 6 page thread what horses in this years derby have this ran curse sounds like a mummy movie:)

Yes I bet and I was using Curlin as the example cause this is a thread about him. Again, I post the angles and people can use them or not...no skin off my back.

I posted them before...since you obviously only want to ridicule the concept I feel no obligation to list them again for you.

sorry you took it as ridicule didnt mean for it to cme across like that found the thread thanks for the information

Zippy...instead of exchanging jabs with each other lets just work on our picks. You have your thoughts..I have my trends/angles. May you do well on Derby day...

Java OUT

PS: Really don't think Baffert was content losing the derby with PG do you? The fact remains he was short on Derby day. I contend he would have blown the field away if he was tighter.