[Merlinsky]

This isn't actually an effort to go point by point and call you obnoxious, I swear. I know breaking it down can look like that, and I think we've gotten caught up in the classic 'misinterpretation of tone on the internet' situation.

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Let's be clear, I made a general statement that anybody that would campaign their top class horses with those things (ie money records, unbeaten streaks) in mind is making a mistake. Now, did I disagree with you and say Jess Jackson wouldn't do it?

Nope.

That's just it, it's not useless to everyone even if it's just sentimental for some folks. If it's your horse, and you bet on your horse, I could imagine it mattering from a financial standpoint. Don't some of these owners drop a lot of cash wagering on their own horses? Thinking your horse is invincible or is in a soft spot could affect your wallet.

Regarding Pepper's Pride's foal, that's very sad. My point with her you gotta wonder if going 6-7-6 entirely in New Mexico would get her a date with Tiznow--her record demonstrated consistently, soundness, talent. Not that constantly being on the board doesn't. This just raises it to another level. The efforts of her team (and of Zenyatta's) is also highlighted by the achievement because it's no small thing to do. The record could be a feather in the cap of the trainer that conditioned a horse to do it, yes? It doesn't matter what level, it's something that gets a trainer press, and I would hope getting good press attracts people to their stable. The aura of being a winner, evident horsemanship, etc.

That's the whole point of my post, if you had actually bothered to read it for the actual content, rather than coming to the ridiculous conclusion that I must be blasting you because I didn't blindly agree with what you posted.

You said "The only thing more useless and more circumstantial than an unbeaten record is the earnings record.", I felt it was easily understood. Perhaps not. The words you chose seem to carry an implied and it felt like a dismissal of my thought as foolish. You did quote me, and reading your remark with my quote it sure came across as snarky. Did you not mean for that tone to exist in that sentence? All you need to do is say "I think you misunderstood me."

The point was that altering a horse's campaign for a money record or an unbeaten career is a foolish enterprise, that IMO, takes away from the horse's legacy. Did Seattle Slew or Smarty Jones skip the Belmont and point for the Ohio Derby to preserve their unbeaten streaks?

Well of course they didn't skip the Belmont, because a Triple Crown is even more important to them. They did mention it on ads though, I've read them. Why do that if they didn't think it would matter? I don't disagree that it can damage a legacy, although I do wonder how much damage it does to Zenyatta since she very nearly won Horse of the Year in spite of it. I agree with you that a legacy can be stronger when there's not a protectionist attitude. (I agreed with you! Let's hug!) It bugged me when Azeri could've branched out and didn't, and I will still wonder what could've been with Zenyatta even though she's won a BC Classic. How weird for that not to be enough.

Clearly not a supporter of literacy, however. I like how you tell everyone else to "calm down" when you completely lost your wad reacting (and misinterpreting) to a single sentence.

I offer you this not as a counterpoint (since we've clearly crossed wires) but as a source of amusement--I have a B.A. in English. Making observations about tone conveyed in text is something I've had to do many a time. I don't worry as much about proper grammar and punctuation on a message board. Clearly I've used my powers of analysis for evil.

If there was one thing worthwhile in Merlinsky's post above, it was that this does not have to be an "either/or" issue.

Aw shucks. A quasi-compliment.