Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Betsy
I was going to post about that, but I decided in the end not to clutter up this board with "what did you think about this horse " posts, when most of them would be by Indy, lol.
Yep, he looked good that day, at least per the chart. Indy does ok on the turf, but nothing special. His sons have had better success - Pulpit is very good (I know he's not considered a turf sire, but he's had a lot of good horses on that surface) and Tapit has Laragh in his first crop. I don't want to see Stardom Bound on turf because it means she likely isn't as good on dirt as she is on poly, but I know Chris Paasch thought she would be outstanding on turf.
|
Thanks for the heads up. I enjoy hearing about Tapits. I saw someone's foals back when she had a first crop Tapit filly and that one stuck out for me the most. She was just gorgeous.
I don't think Stardom Bound will have a chance to go dirt before the Derby/Oaks. Sounds like they're aiming for the SA Derby. Not sure that turf is an indication that she's not good on dirt as Barbaro got set up there and did just fine. Is there a chicken and the egg thing for some horses with synthetics in California? I mean was an owner keeping horses in CA already and the tracks happen to become synthetic or was a horse sent there because the tracks got turned into synthetic? I don't know that it's always the reason that people give for betting on a horse, that a particular one might not be good on dirt since they only raced on CA tracks up to now. Maybe circumstances just kept them off dirt like a preferred coast or trainer. Am I oversimplifying things? I just don't rule out west coast horses point blank unless I find out there was a reason they avoided dirt that had to do with physical problems or they tried it and clearly couldn't handle it.