Quote:
|
Originally Posted by King Glorious
This is silly though. You can't take one horse and say that's proves anything. I could just as easily say "just look at Zenyatta, who was a monster on both" or Midnite Lute or Tiago or Indian Blessing. All of them were good enough to win graded stakes on synthetics and on real dirt. All of them appear to be better on dirt. Why is it automatic that Pioneer can't be is all I ask? I also don't think it's fair to say that Curlin was a monster on dirt. Those last few races were FAAAAR from monster efforts and his losses on grass and synthetics weren't exactly to claiming horses.
Saying one horse proves something........I might as well say that all horses trained by Servis can win the Derby because Smarty Jones proved that.
|
you are being silly. I said "and that proves was Kasept and Ziggy were saying"
Which was... you dont know whats going to happen.
And the Curlin example does prove that.
I never said or implied that the Curlin example means all horses who run well on dirt will suck on synthetics.. or vise versa.
Nobody knows what POTN is going to do on dirt. He could love it, like it, or hate it. But you cant say just because IWR and Papa Clem like the dirt that means POTN will...
that is what my post was about.
Edit: So basically.. the people who bet on POTN in the Derby will have no idea how this horse will take to the surface (like DrugS said, water is wet). Its a bigger gamble than betting on horses who already have established their dirt form. But than again betting is a risk vs reward situation... and POTN odds may be to low to be worth the risk.