Curlin & the Classic

[Withers]

Anyone else totally disgusted by the Santa Anita surface? ProRider my bottom!!!

If we want to race on grass, why don't we just race on grass -- replace the main track with turf and be done with it?

I don't understand why the US industry is taking the one thing we've been doing for the last 100 years -- dirt racing -- and destroying it.

Curlin lost -- no big deal in the grand scheme of things, but it's a damn shame when the most sporting owner in the last decade is unable to race his dirt champion on a dirt surface in the most important US-based raced of the year.

[Danzig]

the most sporting owner in the last decade? i disagree. i would think lord derby might be able to claim that title, with shipping his wonderful mare ouija board all over the world, and to the bc twice, to contest her title.

jess jackson had nothing to lose by going to santa anita-who will hold the loss against curlin? no one. but it was either have curlin lay around all year and do nothing, or race him-no stud farm was interested in that drama.

thankfully, the 20% ownership of midnight cry will be resolved in two weeks at keeeneland. and then you'll see how sporting he really is, as curlin will be retired to stud.

[the_fat_man]

The surface was fair. The best horses won.

DIRT is old news. Fair racing TRUMPS biases.

[Danzig]

i disagree. how one can call a synthetic surface a fair surface is beyond me.

[King Glorious]

There were eight main track races. That's 16 horses that were in the exactas. Of those 16:

-9 have never raced on actual dirt.

-all 16 had either won on grass or on synthetics before yesterday.

-5 had won stakes on grass (Ventura, Church Service, Rebellion, Raven's Pass, and Henrythenavigator).

-4 had won stakes on dirt (Indian Blessing, Zenyatta, Cocoa Beach, Midnight Lute).

Anyone that doesn't see how this stuff leans towards producing results favorable towards grass horses just doesn't want to see it.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

There were eight main track races. That's 16 horses that were in the exactas. Of those 16:

-9 have never raced on actual dirt.

-all 16 had either won on grass or on synthetics before yesterday.

-5 had won stakes on grass (Ventura, Church Service, Rebellion, Raven's Pass, and Henrythenavigator).

-4 had won stakes on dirt (Indian Blessing, Zenyatta, Cocoa Beach, Midnight Lute).

Anyone that doesn't see how this stuff leans towards producing results favorable towards grass horses just doesn't want to see it.

interesting stuff. especially the figure that only 1/4th had won on dirt, compared to all 16 having won on turf or awt previously.

[zippyneedsawin]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

The surface was fair. The best horses won.

DIRT is old news. Fair racing TRUMPS biases.

Hey trip king, do you think Albarado moved a little early with Curlin?

[Smooth Operator]

Wouldn't have mattered when Albarado decided to ask him. The two superior Euros would've still left him in their dust at some point in the stretch, imo.

Asmussen can say what he wants about it being a 'turf race', but, imo, the mandatory 'roid testing this year and the fact that Curlie finally lined up against a couple legit G1 performers had more to do with his sound defeat than the synthetic surface.

[Smooth Operator]

It's a very fair question, DaHoss9698 ... and, frankly, I'm not convinced that Curlie would've been able to handle the Euros at, say, Churchill or Belmont. Heck, he was barely beating mediocrities like Wanderin Boy and Past the Point in his dirt races this season. And his speed figures (at least his Beyers) have been nothing to write home about.

He simply doesn't seem to be as formidable when he's not getting a regular 'roid fix ... like he did last season.



By the way, was it hard tearing up your $2.00 win ticket on Curlie last Saturday? lol

[King Glorious]

My opinion is that the surface didn't get him beaten nor did any premature moves. I thought it was the same move he made at Saratoga and Belmont. The difference was that this wasn't Past the Point and Wanderin Boy he was facing in the stretch. These were two proven top class horses that had a surface that they could take to. Curlin's never looked to be that type that has that quick acceleration that you need to win turf races or synthetic track races since they play like turf. I think that if he was facing the same fields he had faced in NY this year in the BC Classic, he would have won the same way he did those two races. It's sort of like Cigar in 1995/96. He didn't regress at all in 1996. Look at the horses he was facing in 1995. When he faced those same horses in the 1996 Woodward, he won the same way, with the same ease he did in 1995. But when he was facing grade one horses like Skip Away, Louis Quatorze, and Alphabet Soup, those horses weren't as easy to run away from in the lane. Curlin didn't regress this year or move too soon in the BC. He just didn't progress and he faced better horses in the BC.

DaHoss says that his numbers this year are on par with his numbers from last year, minus that BC Classic. I don't know what he would have gotten in the Dubai race but I know that none of his other figures reached the 114 he got last year in the JCGC. They were in the same area though (112 Woodward, 111 JCGC). That's part of the problem though. Generally, we expect horses to improve from their 2yo year to their 3yo year and also from their 3yo year to their 4yo year. How many times do we bemoan the early retirements of our 3yo stars and wonder how much better they would have been as a 4yo? Here, we got a chance to see one continue on and he didn't improve.

[Smooth Operator]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Hilarious. My stomach hurts from laughing so hard. Especially from someone who has a lot to say behind a keyboard, but clearly won't back that opinion up with a wager. We get it. You don't like Curlin. Change the record already...Oh and for the record, Curlin's beyers this year on dirt are on par with his numbers from last year, minus the freaky performance in the Classic. But, I'm sure you knew that.

Lol ... yeah, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize that the colt hasn't improved as a 4-year-old. Frankly, it's pretty embarrassing that his numbers this year are just "on par" with the ones he threw as a 3yo.

Can you imagine if GZ's Beyers at ages 4 and 5 would've stayed "on par" with those he earned at 3? lol



Could the fact that he wasn't on a 'roid regimen this season have anything ... anything at all ... to do with this embarrassing situation, DaHoss9698?

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Smooth Operator

It's a very fair question, DaHoss9698 ... and, frankly, I'm not convinced that Curlie would've been able to handle the Euros at, say, Churchill or Belmont. Heck, he was barely beating mediocrities like Wanderin Boy and Past the Point in his dirt races this season. And his speed figures (at least his Beyers) have been nothing to write home about.

He simply doesn't seem to be as formidable when he's not getting a regular 'roid fix ... like he did last season.



By the way, was it hard tearing up your $2.00 win ticket on Curlie last Saturday? lol

My mind is numb... Exactly when was the last Euro horse to win a Breeders cup race on dirt ?

[King Glorious]

I know they weren't wins but there were definitely some winning efforts put in by Sakhee and Giant's Causeway in the 2000 and 2001 Classics. Swain in the 1998 one too if he doesn't try to visit the grandstand.

[slotdirt]

Didn't we have this same steroid argument with Big Brown sometime in the general vicinity of the Preakness and Belmont, and didn't Cannon Shell pretty much poke holes in every theory out there that steroids drastically improve a horse's performance?

[Smooth Operator]

Lol ... come on, Duh-Hoss9698, just admit it ... Curlie didn't improve as a 4-year-old because they took away his Winny.


Thankfully, though, we got to see the REAL Curlie this year. A Curlie which struggled to get by turf titans like Wanderin Boy and Past the Point ... a Curlie which threw sub-par BSFs ... and a Curlie which got his head handed to him by a couple Euros in the BCC.

Such things never would've happened to the old, pharmacologically-altered Curlie…

[slotdirt]

Man, I wish I could have a horse whose sub-par Beyers litter the DRF leaderboard for races over a mile.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

112, 111 and 110 beyers are subpar? Interesting...Your understanding of the game continues to shine. Yes, the real Curlin steroids or not proved he was the best dirt horse in training last year and this. He won the Dubai World Cup, Stephan Foster, Whitney, Jockey Club Gold Cup and was second to a former BC winner in his first and only turf start this year, a year you admit he was steroid free. He also, for all the flack he took ran in the BC on a surface foreign to him that favors horses that run on the turf. He was 4th. What a fraud. So, I ask again, what more could he have done this year? Run faster. I laughed.

The funniest thing about all of this is I don't even really like Curlin that much. I was a big fan of Street Sense. I just dislike stupidity so much that I have no problem defending him when stupidity rears it's ugly head. I have no idea what your real hard on for him is, but whatever it is, it's kind of sad.

You can ignore my points about the countless horses the last couple decades that were on the same steroid regimens that Curlin was. You can ignore my point that his progression, like a lot of horses that are rushed into the Triple Crown was not what you would have liked to see. But, he progressed so much in so little time it was almost impossible for him to show the progressin like horses used to. I'm not sure what more you would have liked him to accomplish, but his record speaks for himself. It's fine. Racing has changed.

You seem angry that Curlin, while winning every dirt race he ran in this year didn't do it fast enough for you. That's quite the compelling arguement. I think it's pretty obvious who the real fraud is and it's not Curlin....

I have never iggified anyone because there was always something to take from the poster. But this "Curlie" stuff is like nails on a chalkboard while watching harness racing..unbearable.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

112, 111 and 110 beyers are subpar? Interesting...Your understanding of the game continues to shine. Yes, the real Curlin steroids or not proved he was the best dirt horse in training last year and this. He won the Dubai World Cup, Stephan Foster, Whitney, Jockey Club Gold Cup and was second to a former BC winner in his first and only turf start this year, a year you admit he was steroid free. He also, for all the flack he took ran in the BC on a surface foreign to him that favors horses that run on the turf. He was 4th. What a fraud. So, I ask again, what more could he have done this year? Run faster. I laughed.

Relatively speaking, yes they are. Obviously, they were among the best of this year and he was consistent with them. But when the talk comes to him being among the best of the decade or best of the past 25 years (though I know you personally don't subscribe to that), then yes, those numbers are subpar to what the horses that actually deserve to be in those conversations put up. And I still argue that when you have a horse that's put up a 111 as a 3yo in his fifth career start and a 114 and 119 later that same year, it's not expecting too much to see improvement from a maturing 4yo with more experience. Asmussen always talked about how he was physically better and mentally better but his speed figures were consistently lower than what he was able to reach last year. This is not opinion. Par is relative and I believe his were subpar based on what we have seen from him in the past and the natural progression that we expected to see this year. But they were above par for the 2008 older male division which is why he was able to win the races he did.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

As I have stated many times in the past, I'm not sure who is calling Curlin this great horse, but it has never been me. I don't personally believe he was among the best of the last 25 years. What I have maintained is he was a very good horse on dirt. He was consistent, accomplished a hell of a lot in a short amount of time and was a very good horse in a time when that is rare.

Frankly, I could care less how he stacks up with champs of the past. Like I said earlier in this thread, there is no speed figure for his World Cup win, but if i had to take a guess, I think it would be closer to the 115-119 range you guys were looking for. You follow the game, do horses progress like they used to? Horses that run for trainers that take their time seem to. But I just don't think that a horse that wins the Preakness in his 5th start, 3 months after his career began is going to take the big step forward like some do as a 4 year old. Maybe if Curlin was a superhorse he would have, but he clearly is not. I'm not sure who says he is, but he is not. I could really care less what Asmussen says, because you know well enough to take trainerspeak as what it is.

I guess the arguement here is because Curlin wasn't running beyers in the 120 range that it somehow diminishes what he did. Sorry, I disagree. It's 2008. The game has changed, and for the worse. but, I know you know that. The days of the champs of the past are over.

I did acknowledge in my post that I know you don't subscribe to all that talk about him being some superhorse. And the argument here, at least not from me, isn't about trying to diminish what he did accomplish this year. Without question, he was the best older male to compete in the U.S this year. I don't think anyone is disputing that. His accomplishments are what they are. The only thing I'm arguing is that if a horse has established that he can run at the 114-119 level then he's set his par there. If he comes back and goes 110, 111, 112, that's below the par he's set for himself. My part of the argument has nothing to do with what he did this year or how good he was this year in comparison to what he had to face. He's not running below the par for the competition but he's below his personal par.

[Smooth Operator]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Relatively speaking, yes they are. Obviously, they were among the best of this year and he was consistent with them. But when the talk comes to him being among the best of the decade or best of the past 25 years (though I know you personally don't subscribe to that), then yes, those numbers are subpar to what the horses that actually deserve to be in those conversations put up. And I still argue that when you have a horse that's put up a 111 as a 3yo in his fifth career start and a 114 and 119 later that same year, it's not expecting too much to see improvement from a maturing 4yo with more experience. Asmussen always talked about how he was physically better and mentally better but his speed figures were consistently lower than what he was able to reach last year. This is not opinion. Par is relative and I believe his were subpar based on what we have seen from him in the past and the natural progression that we expected to see this year. But they were above par for the 2008 older male division which is why he was able to win the races he did.

Of course they are, KG. Amazing how some people feel they are fine numbers for a supposed top-flight G1 animal.


If they would've just let Curlie be Curlie ... er, I should say Curlie be the old, chemically-altered Curlie (let's call him SuperCurlie ... lol), then he would've been throwing much better BSFs this season, imo...