Originally Posted by pgardn

So you truly believe the Black population, on the whole, had the same socioeconomic status of the Caucasion population, on the whole, in the 1950's?

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

In the "It can't hurt to ask" department, I just emailed ntra.com to see if maybe they'd put the St. Louis Derby in the video archive. I said I and a lot of LR fans weren't able to see the race and really would like to...

Feel free to email them, too-- maybe if enough of us ask...

Here's to the iron horses!

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

We're talking about establishing or continuing a male line.
Buckaroo sired exactly two male G1 winners ... and Apalachee sired exactly one. Not quite the type of mass production that dynasties are built on ... or which deserve chef-de-race designation.
Were they horrible? In terms of establishing or continuing a line ... they sure were.
Do you have any other questions ... which don't involve cutting or pasting?

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

No ... my comment was ... that in the 1950's African-American families were nearly as stable as other American families.

That is not an opinion ... it is a fact born out by the extensive research of such outstanding economists and historians ... like Dr. Thomas Sowell, Dr. Walter Williams, and Dr. Shelby Steele.

But ... you don't have to take my word for it ... just read their works ... inspect their data ... and you too will learn that it's true.

Originally Posted by Pedigree Ann

But establishing a lasting sire line is not what is under discussion. Siring a son who can become a decent sire is what we were talking about in relation with Lawyer Ron. His buyers wouldn't care if every one of his good runners was a filly or a gelding, so long as they can sire runners, like many other grandsons of Danzig have. Furthermore, the chef-de-race distinction has nothing to do with establishing a lasting sire line; it has to do with having a lasting effect on the breed, as a sire of sires or a sire of dams, whatever. READ THE CRITERIA, either Varola's or Roman's.

What cutting and pasting are you talking about? I compose on-line using material from my own database and research materials. Write for a pedigree magazine, don't you know.

Originally Posted by pgardn

Eww. I got him to answer. So blacks were as NOT as well off economically in the 50's? And if they were not, why not with that stable family structure? No history before that BB? Thats what you left out before... Along with a bunch of other things with other posts.

Originally Posted by pgardn

Lawyer Ron got people's attention with his Arkansas Derby win. Smarty Jones made that a race with more credibility. So it was assumed he would be right in the mix. I also hope he makes a solid comeback as I like the less glamorous background.

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

I read Varola, Romans, Rasmussen, Hewitt, and Palmer long before you did ... and understand a lot more about bloodlines than you ever will, honey.

Having access to databases doesn't mean that you understand them ... or understand what's written about them.

I'm still waiting for you to "prove" that the Sir Gallahad line was more influential than the Bull Dog line between 1946 and 1956.

You seem to have no problem pouring out inconsequential reams of useless data ... but the cat seems to have gotten your tongue on that one. When are you going to back up the ludicrously false statement you made about those two Teddy boys?

You're an absolute phony and hypocrite, girly.

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

You know ... and I know ... and now everyone else knows ... that what I said then ... and what I say now ... is that African-American families were nearly as stable as all other American families in the 1950's.

You can wiggle and squirm and distort and throw sand in the air ... and you do ... but nothing you say or do can change that fact ... or permit you to slip away from it.

You certainly have not documented that I said anything other than that ... and of course you know that you can't ... hence all your sand throwing and mud slinging.

Originally Posted by pgardn

We will try ONE more time and show the board:
Were blacks as well off socioeconomically in the 1950's as Whites given that they had such a stable family structure. And if NOT, why not? This is what you never answered before. And still avoid.

Originally Posted by sumitas

blacks have every opportunity to be successfull. if they are not it's nobody's fault but their own. Just ask Bill Cosby, Juan Williams and many others. who's fault is it their illegitimate birth rate is 99%.

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

I told you all that Lawyer Ron wasn't overrated. Is he in Bernardini's league right now?...no way...I don't think any horse is. But, he is a very nice graded stakes horse that has a very, very promising future. His comeback race was spectacular. He'll only improve off of that start. I am really looking forward to BD's and Sharp Humors returns too. Has anyone heard anything about SNS?

Originally Posted by moodwalker

Here are two...

Makybe Diva and Phar Lap

Or maybe Sunline and Might and Power

Zabeel and Strawberry Road.

In the picture of "our" industry they might be small players. And the reason for that is that they have "their" industry that they really don't need to compare to ours. The Australians don't need to come up here and run for our purse money...ever. They have plenty of their own.

Originally Posted by Cunningham Racing

Purse money means very little when speaking to "Quality of racing"....Garded stakes and prestiuous garded/group events matter....believe me, Australia racing is not prominent....nice try though digging up name from 20 yaesr ago...Strawberry Road was Americanized for his fame while Sunline beat nobody during her run, but she was a nice mare for beating cheap boys consistently....

I'll put it to yoiu in a big picture to understand what I mean....If Australia was crushed by an enormous earthquake/tsunami and wiped off the entire continent and killed every Thoroughbred that existed there --- the Throughbred horse racing industry would NOT be impacted significantly....get it?

Now, if North America or Europe were wiped out, it would cripple the industry....Would you not agree?

...Let me know if you want to take horse racing 201 next....

Originally Posted by moodwalker

The reason that American buyers don't go buy Australian horses and bring them here isn't because they are not as good as most other parts of the world. You really think South American and European horses are just better than Australian ones, and that is the reason you see a lot of them here?

Originally Posted by Cunningham Racing

You are wrong...admitting this and just stopping would be the best move...you'll never show that you know as much or more than me relative to this industry....nice try though

Originally Posted by Pedigree Ann

Because the South American horses are running for G1 purses of about $50,000, while in Australia they run for $1,000,000 (2mill Aussie$) G1 purses. it's the same reason we can't go buy the Japanese horses; their purses are big enough that the American buyers can't buy top performers for a song. Most of the Euro horses sold to the US (as opposed to the raiders) were second class over there and the buyers hope they will improve with Lasix and dry turf. Back when I started going to the races, there were several good Aussie and Kiwi runners in the US, especially in California, horses like Daryl's Joy, Broker's Tip II, Divide and Rule, all classic winners back home and winners of races which would later become grade 1 when grading was introduced.

You did notice when Elvstroem won the Dubai Duty Free a year or so ago? Or when the third or fourth best sprinter in Australia, Choisir, went to Royal Ascot and won a G1? Australia/New Zealand is where most of the horses who race in Hong Kong are bred, including Silent Witness. Australian horses run without any drugs and any horse that bleeds after a race is banned from racing after the second occurence. They run on hard, dry turf and wet, soggy turf, left and right handed and down straights, in front of crowds that make ours look pathetic. Racehorses actually race full campaigns and are national heros there, unlike in this country.

I realize that the learned gentleman is not about to let a few facts make a dent in his parochial prejudices. But others who read this board may be interested in investigating the racing in a country where the sport still has the status and visibility that it had in this country 60 years ago.