Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite
And the geniuses who think they can't ... should learn a lot more about thoroughbred racing history.
You've bought into the "fresh horse" theory ... and I completely disagree with it. Nothing will definitively resolve the difference .. but ...
... I do know that thirty years and more ago ... I watched all the best horses in every division race 12 or 15 or more times every year ... top horses facing each other five, six or more times within the campaign ... and today ... fans only get to see their favorites a handful of times at best.
Regardless of which training method works better ... the old way at least made the sport a lot more interesting.
|
Something has obviously changed over the last 40 years. I've been really into racing for about 25 years. One of the first things I learned as a handicapper was not to bet horses that were overraced and/or coming back too quickly. It took me a couple of years to figure that out. I would see a really good horse break their maiden first-time out and then they'd come back around 15 days later in an allowance race that they should win easily. I would see these horses get beat time and time again. It didn't take me long to figure out that these horses needed more time to recover. I noticed that if a horse was given 26 days or more after breaking their maiden first-time out, they would have a good chance to win that first-level allowance race.
When I started buying horses, I would see the same thing. I would see that it takes them time to recover from races. Only in rare situations would I ever run a horse on only three weeks rest. Through my experience I have found that by only running horses every 4 weeks or so, not only do they stay sounder but they will stay in form for a much longer period of time.