Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin
I think he actually went to 2 for 5 today in graded stakes races. He won the grade II Dixie in addition to the Preakness. He obviously had a great day today. I agree with what you're saying in regard to just normal win percentage. He usually doesn't have his horses totally cranked up for their debuts. He will often times give them a race. That might lower his overall win percentage by a point or two.
But I don't think you can use that argument in graded stakes races. Trainers don't normally prep horses in graded stakes races.
In terms of judging the way Lukas spots his horses, it's really just a matter of what an owner's personal preference is. If an owner's personal preference is to always take chances and run 20-1 shots in big races, then Lukas might be a good trainer for that owner. There is a risk with that strategy. Horses aren't machines. They usually don't stay in form for very long and they usually don't stay sound for very long. If you run your horse over his head, at the very least you are wasting a race. In addition, your horse may not come out of the race in one piece.
On the other hand, some trainers are way too conservative. I know some trainers who only want to run their horse in a stakes race if the horse is going to be 5-1 or less. I think that is ridiculous. You need to take chances sometimes. There are extremes on both sides. I like a trainer that is somewhere in between, a trainer that is willing to take chances occasionally but not a trainer who is constantly running his horses over their heads.
|
As to your first bolded commentary, wouldn't Bill Mott be a perfect example of a trainer who has been brilliant at racing in graded stakes as preps for the big one? Isn't that the whole concept of the "Derby Preps" system? Look at the sweep Pletcher makes of Graded Stakes year round, but how does he perform on Breeder's Cup, Derby day, Travers etc.? Sure he has won a few, but he has lost a lot more at less than 5-1.
As to the second bolded commentary, are the horses of winning percentage obsessed trainers really lasting any longer? Some will argue (and very effectively) that less racing is actually making horses less sound. Can you absolutely say that Normandy Invasion's career is going to last longer because despite reports of him acting and feeling great, he stayed in his stall yesterday? Itsmyluckyday got trounced in the Derby, but ran back to a solid second yesterday. Sure, there is no harm in him staying in his stall and waiting for the Haskell, but thankfully, there are still trainers out there taking a shot and that is what makes racing more interesting and stronger as a sport.