$10,000 for Too Much Bling
 

He is going to stand at Sequel Stallions for Stonewall who acquired him.

Here is the link:
http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/bre...Stonewall.aspx

10K is too much bling....

That is what I thought, but I do not know much about breeding. I have learned tons from you and Balletto and Pedigree Ann. I was thinking maybe $7500 for him.

Isn't he an Ohio bred?

More importantly....why the hell was he retired?

Yes, I believe he is.

Ha ha. I was just reading the article on Bloodhorse about him. I don't know, maybe put him with a mare with stamina in her blood and ya may get a nice baby...

Does he really have anything else left to prove though? :rolleyes:

He must have serious physical problems in that he raced only in the BC after July and wasn't in the Malibu.

He leaves us having looked better than he was.

He won a 5F MSW at Thistledown by like 20 lengths, they should have just retired him then. I mean, he really didn't have anything to prove after that.

Stonewall is really pathetic.

I think he has plenty to prove. I believe that he never has won a Grade I event. Right there is something that needs to be proven. I also think he was one horse who wasnt as good as people thought. And yes, he is an Ohio bred. His pedigree isnt that bad on his dads side. Rubiano, Fappiano, Mr Prospector, Raise a Native etc etc.

You may indeed have something there . . . put a horse that runs his heart out with a trainer who works the hell out of his horses and maybe some physical problems came up.

10k... wow.

Nothing about him warrants that stud fee, but not many newly retired horses are priced accordingly.

Rubiano is not known as a sire of sire, and his dam line is rather common.

The only thing I can say thats interesting about him is that he does have a lot of very interesting lines to do some linebreeding and inbreeding to. :rolleyes:

Truth is he was much better than most thought,but the conversation is now over.You can't prove it if you don't run.

Thats the sport we love in a nutshell. Amen.

Standard rationale: "There was nothing was left for the horse to accomplish." :)

Looked like a top 3 yo sprinter over the spring and summer, has no fall campaign at all in order to come in to the BC well-rested, and then finishes up the track in the BC - and is subsequently retired. Nice career! I love racing.

Nothing left to accomplish? How about winning a grade one. Bishop Court Hill did. Too Much Bling is one of the most overrated horses in the past couple of years. He has looked sensational blasting a few weak fields and nobody will ever forget the day he lost to Songster because Gomez got him pinned on the rail. Believe me, hes got plenty left to prove. Too Much Bling will be forgotten just like 95% of the horses who have run this decade.

There were more "real" horses running in 1995 alone than in all years so far from this decade of racing.

How could it not? The mid nineties were like Ben & Jerry's Sweet Cream & Cookies ice cream...simply spoiling.

I remember the goose bumps I use to get watching horses like Skip Away and Formal Gold and Lure run. Wow, what a list I could make.

Havent felt goosebumps since the start of the Belmont where Smarty Jones was going for the Triple Crown and came up short.

Something about Ghostzapper, Saint Liam and Invasor just didnt get me all that jazzed. You know?

Back then I didnt even need to bet. Honestly I think I made 1 bet ever on Skip Away, $1,500 to win on him when he won the BC Classic. But I watched and rewatched all his races in awe.

Ghostzapper was greatly talented for sure, but 4 months between races to run against watered down fields? Where is the historic pleasure in that?

I lost a bundle betting against Cigar. Funny thing is I bet on him when he failed a few times on the turf before he got great.

Holy Bull also killed me at the windows. But I respect the hell out of him and he could have pissed on Ghostzapper & Bernardini.

Ghostzapper was one of the few horses in 19 years of being a racing fan that actually brought me out to the track to watch him run. I made a special trip out to Belmont for his Met Mile just because he was a horse I felt that as a racing fan I needed to see at least once in person. After the race I did have chills - and that doesn't happen to me very often - because I knew I just saw one of the most talented horses in history. I still look back at the effort on YouTube and shake my head at how impressive it was and how good that horse was. It's too bad that his campaigns didn't allow his accomplishments to equate with his ability because he was probably the most talented horse to run in a long long time.

Of course Too Much Bling was pretty awe-inspiring as well... :D

........bernardini, yes. ghostzapper.....:rolleyes:

Holy Bull at 3 was slightly better than Bernardini going middle distances. Going over 1 1/8, they were probably pretty equal.

Ghostzapper obviously hit his peak form as a 4 yo. On his best, he was the fastest horse of recent times.

He broke down.

Holy Bull's 2 fastest races/Beyers were both at middle distances. Obviously his overall Travers effort was probably better than the final figure indicated as a result of the pace scenario, but in general Holy Bull's races at 9-10 Furlongs (115-113-85-115-115-116) look extremely similar to Bernardini's (113-114-116-117-115). They were both 3 yo's so they probably would have been even faster at 4, but I would imagine that Bernardini's ceiling was a little higher at 4 than Holy Bull's given that he was an and a bit more lightly raced.

I posted the lifetime Beyer figs for a bunch of top horses from the past 20 years in a prior thread, but here's Holy Bull again:

Holy Bull
Olympic - 117

Woodward - 116
Travers - 115
Haskell - 115
Dwyer - 119
Met Mile - 122
Derby - 85
Bluegrass - 113
Fla Derby - 115
FOY - 57
Hutch - 108

In Reality - 93
Futurity - 103
Alw - 91
MSW - 101

They were being facetious when they said he had nothing left to prove. That has been an on-going joke around here for a few months. They even said it kiddingly about The Green Monkey. They said why even bother running him. He has nothing left to prove.

Rest assured, Bernardini wouldnt have.... :)

Holy Bull was a very special horse...

perhaps we should start a pool on how many years stonewall remains in business....
would love to see their business plan.

Holy Bull's Met Mile was his best race ever. Bernardini wouldn't have matched that - but Bernardini certainly could have matched Holy Bull's Woodward. Bernardini's last several races were very much in line with Holy Bull's Woodward. As I mentioned previously - Holy Bull & Bernardini were pretty similar going 1 1/8 - 1 1/4.

Bernardini was an extremely nice horse. He was never as good as the summer hype which wanted him to be in line with Secretariat, but he's certainly not as bad or overrated as the more recent claims want to make him out to be after the BC loss. He was very consistent in his figures/efforts and he is what he is - a top level 3 yo who was better than the typical 3 yo champ, in line with the better 3 yo's of recent times, but a bit below the all-time great level.

It's certainly more then just numbers isnt it? Basing everything solely on numbers seems a little too simplistic... Competition has to be factored in as well...

Running away from horses like Colonial Affair and Devil His Due etc.. is a little different than beating up on Wanderin Boy, Minister's Bid, Bluegrass Cat etc..