Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cmorioles
This seems to be a common theme lately. I can see both sides of the coin here. Certainly, he has won a ton of races, the most in history. However, he has done it at a very low level of racing.
Waterford Park, to equate to baseball, probably wasn't even single A level racing, more like rookie ball. Horses that couldn't win at Pen and CT and Tdn and Beu wound up at Mnr. So, again with the baseball, does a guy that hits 350 at single A wind up in Cooperstown?
|
Not that I'm tryin to start anything here, but I see a lot of a bias against lower level tracks, etc (mainly when I talk about my preference for betting crap claimers over Grade 1s, I take some guff for it every time). Whether it be betting, or speaking of the people that are the big timers at these tracks. Give Dale Baird some million-dollar yearlings, and I bet he can run with Pletch. It's about taking what you have, and winning with it. HE DID THAT. Is it better to win a bunch of 5k claiming races, or be like Jamie Sanders where you can barely win anything at any level?
"to win over 9000 races as a trainer is one remarkable feat.
God Bless Dale Baird
R.I.P."
Amen Eaj... 'nuff said.