Curlin to be m/l fav

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by easy goer

Foster Brooks was more like the 70s; he may have done stuff in the 60s but the Dean Martin roasts were 70s. And Bill Hicks I thought was the 80s or maybe the 90s.??

hicks did brilliant work in the 80's so you are essentially correct. his career was about 1980-1993. and brooks became well known in 1969 so again, my bad.

thanks for harshing my mellow.

my point was that foster brooks was a one note appeal to the lowest common denominater. he was as funny as cat crap on a radiator.

replace lenny bruce with richard pryor. same point.

bill hicks is irreplaceable.

[Merlinsky]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

hicks did brilliant work in the 80's so you are essentially correct. his career was about 1980-1993. and brooks became well known in 1969 so again, my bad.

thanks for harshing my mellow.

my point was that foster brooks was a one note appeal to the lowest common denominater. he was as funny as cat crap on a radiator.

replace lenny bruce with richard pryor. same point.

bill hicks is irreplaceable.

Did any of those guys go off as the m/l favorite for the Kentucky Derby? (Sorry, just trying to swing the thread back on topic without there being a non sequitur.)

Not to knock Curlin as he's nice and Smart Strike's enjoyable, it's just goofy how some horses are coming into the race this year, be it preps at 3, number of preps period, or what have you. It would almost be kinda funny if a horse that met Somer's rules of thumb won and you had trainers just throw up their hands in confusion. Can somebody do me a favor and put up the top few Beyers from Derby hopefuls? I'm just curious if any of the ones that are getting gushed about don't have a top Beyer approaching what is normal for a Derby winner in recent years. It's not the be all end all number but yet another fun thing to play with.

I think about the preps thing, in the case of horses before, I figure they were trying to get more than 2 in and if they couldn't it was due to some soundness issue or something happened. Doing it on purpose is a whole new ball game, esp. if you have a trainer good with bringing horses off layoffs. That said, I think some trainers are a little cocky thinking it's just about physical readiness (on the other hand, folks like Carl Nafzger know darn well what they're doing with the horse's total package, it's about horsemanship). Sure the horse could get the mile and a quarter in good time left to his own devices but with 19 other horses, some serious dirt in his face in all likelihood and the various other things that go on, well it's mental seasoning too. A horse might seem more professional in a prep than in that field with that big a grandstand roar coming at them. Even if one of them shows some major class and overcomes the newness to win, it'll still be the exception rather than the rule. I don't think it indicates a trainer's found the secret to getting a horse with a good head on its shoulders. They might've just gotten lucky and any other horse would've been screwed.

[Java Gold]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

I won't be using simple mechanical rules (less than three preps can't win the derby). Ideally whatever horse I back in the derby would have three preps as a 3YO.

Also, I put no stock in a statement like "horse is following the same path as Barbaro". Guess what? Scat Daddy is not Barbaro. Scat Daddy is not infused with any special magic because he came from the Florida preps. I guess you went all in last year with Lawyer Ron cause he was following the Smarty Jones path?

Why do you call the Blue Grass a weak prep? Isn't it customary to determine if the prep was strong or weak by watching what happens to the horses the next time they race? I know it was an oddly run race but I think its too early to call it weak.

Blue Grass was a weak prep due to the early pace of the race as slow as one has ever seen. The horses did not get anything out of the race unless you call the 3 furlong dash to the wire worth noting? Horrible prep for them. It will be interesting to see next year who skips that Blue Grass to avoid that pathetic poly track. It did nothing to improve the foundation needed to move onto the Derby.

And tell me how you determine that Scat Daddy is no Barbaro? Based on what? Scat Daddy is better positioned going into the Derby than Barbaro was. If Scatt Daddy wins the Derby does he then compare to the great Barbaro? Would think so huh...

Java OUT

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Java Gold

Scat Daddy is better positioned going into the Derby than Barbaro was.

Oh wow! How many lengths is he going to win by then? 15? 20?

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Java Gold

Blue Grass was a weak prep due to the early pace of the race as slow as one has ever seen. The horses did not get anything out of the race unless you call the 3 furlong dash to the wire worth noting? Horrible prep for them. It will be interesting to see next year who skips that Blue Grass to avoid that pathetic poly track. It did nothing to improve the foundation needed to move onto the Derby.

And tell me how you determine that Scat Daddy is no Barbaro? Based on what? Scat Daddy is better positioned going into the Derby than Barbaro was. If Scatt Daddy wins the Derby does he then compare to the great Barbaro? Would think so huh...

Java OUT

Absolutely agree with this statement here. Scat Daddy is a more accomplished runner than Barbaro was at this same point. At the very least, they are on a very even par. Whether or not he can duplicate Barbaro's feat and win the Derby remains to be seen. Truth is, he could run just as well and still not win it because he's facing a better group that Barbaro, IMO. But I think a lot of people look at what Barbaro did in the Derby and let it cloud their judgement of what was the general opinion of him before the race. Before the race, most people thought he was a definite factor in the race and had a good chance of winning but NOBODY could have predicted he was going to dominate the race the way he did.

[King Glorious]

I may be the only one on here that doesn't know but......what the hell is a RAN curse? I've been in this game for over 20 years and have never heard of that until I read that phrase on here a week ago. Anyone care to fill me in?

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

It's also said that it's an advantage if a horse has more points in the middle category (classic) than the others. I like to see at least 8 points in the classic category. That would leave the following contenders out of the ones that already fit the 4 angles you mentioned (I put the number of points they each have in that classic category after their names):

Any Given Saturday (10)
Cowtown Cat (8)
Hard Spun (24)
Liquidity (14)
Nobiz (12)
Sam P. (14)
Scat Daddy (11)
Sedgefield (11)
Storm in May (11)
Zanjero (8)
Xchanger (12) - if he goes.
Teuflesberg (9) - if he makes it in.

No offense to u but any "formula", "angle", "system", etc., that can include Teuflesberg, Storm in May, Sedgefield, Sam P., and Liquidity in it........but can't include Circular Quay and Curlin..........should be thrown out of the nearest window. Now, just because it does include Nobiz, Hard Spun and Scat Daddy, should one of those three win, I don't think it can be said that the angle was correct. They could have won no matter if CQ and Curlin had met every criteria. At some point, shouldn't what u see with your eyes take over and all of this silly angle stuff be left alone? Anyone on here old enough to remember when horses were judged by how good THEY were, not by some silly formulas, speed ratings, or curses?

[zippyneedsawin]

Originally Posted by Java Gold

Simple three preps before the derby period.... two preps for the both you mention... The last 1/8th will be their brick wall.

You want to look at foundation look at someone like Scat Daddy. Dual grade 1 winner, two 1 1/8 mile preps at 1:49. Who else can claim that? Horse is following the same path as Barbaro and getting totally ignored.

If you think the winner is coming off a weak prep (Bluegrass & an 8 week layoff) as Street Sense & Circular Quay are, please let me be your betting window May 5th.

Java OUT

I think the derby angles are a nice tool to consider for the Derby.. including the three preps angle.. but, to me, Barbaro broke more than the RAN curse last year.. His first prep of the year was the Tropical Derby on JANUARY 1st.. then the Holy Bull on February 4th.. then the Florida Derby on April 1st... so from January 2nd to KY Derby day, he had TWO preps.. (13 weeks leading up to the race.) --yes, I know technically he ran 3x in 2006 before the derby(but would you have tossed him had the Tropical Derby been Dec. 31st, instead of jan 1??)
As far as 'hitting a brick wall' in the final 8th, Barbaro could have easily faced that some concern as you are putting on SS and CQ... IMO.
So, I agree getting 3 preps is a big positive for a contender, but not essential under the right circumstances.
though, again, I think the angles are a useful tool in general.

[zippyneedsawin]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

No offense to u but any "formula", "angle", "system", etc., that can include Teuflesberg, Storm in May, Sedgefield, Sam P., and Liquidity in it........but can't include Circular Quay and Curlin..........should be thrown out of the nearest window. Now, just because it does include Nobiz, Hard Spun and Scat Daddy, should one of those three win, I don't think it can be said that the angle was correct. They could have won no matter if CQ and Curlin had met every criteria. At some point, shouldn't what u see with your eyes take over and all of this silly angle stuff be left alone? Anyone on here old enough to remember when horses were judged by how good THEY were, not by some silly formulas, speed ratings, or curses?

LOL!!!

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

No offense to u but any "formula", "angle", "system", etc., that can include Teuflesberg, Storm in May, Sedgefield, Sam P., and Liquidity in it........but can't include Circular Quay and Curlin..........should be thrown out of the nearest window. Now, just because it does include Nobiz, Hard Spun and Scat Daddy, should one of those three win, I don't think it can be said that the angle was correct. They could have won no matter if CQ and Curlin had met every criteria. At some point, shouldn't what u see with your eyes take over and all of this silly angle stuff be left alone? Anyone on here old enough to remember when horses were judged by how good THEY were, not by some silly formulas, speed ratings, or curses?

It's an angle, KG, not a definite rule of thumb. For the record, I don't like Quay or Curlin, but my reasoning isn't because of dosage points.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I may be the only one on here that doesn't know but......what the hell is a RAN curse? I've been in this game for over 20 years and have never heard of that until I read that phrase on here a week ago. Anyone care to fill me in?

Well, a newbie with only 20 years of experience can't be expected to know such things (that's a joke!). Seriously, as Juliette Lewis would say, "since you asked!":
RAN Curse refers to breeding lines. RAN (Raise A Native) is arguably one of the greatest sires of the 20th century, if you check the Derby winners over the past couple of decades, you'll note that a huge number have RAN in their sire's sire line. I haven't checked but I wouldn't be surprised if about half the runners in this year's Derby have same. Despite that huge success and his production of successful broodmare sires, until Barbaro "broke the curse" last year, no runner with RAN in his dam's sire line had won the Derby. Wonderful horses such as Point Given had failed. There are breeding theories (LH+, stamina from dam) that could explain this...anyway, I would still be cautious of a horse with RAN in dam's sire line in the Derby...doesn't apply so much to other races although both the Preakness and Belmont have fewer winners than one would expect.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Well, a newbie with only 20 years of experience can't be expected to know such things (that's a joke!). Seriously, as Juliette Lewis would say, "since you asked!":
RAN Curse refers to breeding lines. RAN (Raise A Native) is arguably one of the greatest sires of the 20th century, if you check the Derby winners over the past couple of decades, you'll note that a huge number have RAN in their sire's sire line. I haven't checked but I wouldn't be surprised if about half the runners in this year's Derby have same. Despite that huge success and his production of successful broodmare sires, until Barbaro "broke the curse" last year, no runner with RAN in his dam's sire line had won the Derby. Wonderful horses such as Point Given had failed. There are breeding theories (LH+, stamina from dam) that could explain this...anyway, I would still be cautious of a horse with RAN in dam's sire line in the Derby...doesn't apply so much to other races although both the Preakness and Belmont have fewer winners than one would expect.

Thank u. I guess I have never heard of it because I think breeding and dosage stuff is the most overrated and useless information one can use in handicapping.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Thank u. I guess I have never heard of it because I think breeding and dosage stuff is the most overrated and useless information one can use in handicapping.

I wish I felt the same way... how do you bet first time starters?

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Thank u. I guess I have never heard of it because I think breeding and dosage stuff is the most overrated and useless information one can use in handicapping.

Everybody's different...RAN is a very influential sire though, in fact two of your "top horses", King Glorious and Smarty Jones descend from RAN in male tail or sire's sire line.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

I wish I felt the same way... how do you bet first time starters?

Usually, I don't. But when I do, I like to look at workouts, the riders and the trainers. I will say this though about breeding. In the case of first time starters and in the case of a horse trying something for the first time (say a dirt runner trying grass for the first time), then I do give a look to breeding. I think that is the only time it can be helpful, when trying to figure what a horse may be able to do. But once they have run, especially a few times, and shown what kind of ability they have, I throw it out of the window.

[deltagulf]

Originally Posted by cakes44

I wish Battaglia did the race call for the Derby.

oh god no

[Java Gold]

Originally Posted by zippyneedsawin

I think the derby angles are a nice tool to consider for the Derby.. including the three preps angle.. but, to me, Barbaro broke more than the RAN curse last year.. His first prep of the year was the Tropical Derby on JANUARY 1st.. then the Holy Bull on February 4th.. then the Florida Derby on April 1st... so from January 2nd to KY Derby day, he had TWO preps.. (13 weeks leading up to the race.) --yes, I know technically he ran 3x in 2006 before the derby(but would you have tossed him had the Tropical Derby been Dec. 31st, instead of jan 1??)
As far as 'hitting a brick wall' in the final 8th, Barbaro could have easily faced that some concern as you are putting on SS and CQ... IMO.
So, I agree getting 3 preps is a big positive for a contender, but not essential under the right circumstances.
though, again, I think the angles are a useful tool in general.

I would have tossed Barbaro based on two preps if that was indeed what occurred prior to the derby. It did not. He still ran 3 preps in 06. If history is any indicator of past success in the Derby it is essential to have the 3 preps. Not to say it will not change in the coming years...but for now it is a proven theory of foundation building to win the Derby.

I posted earlier and I will repeat it...ask Bob Baffert what he felt Point Given was lacking after not winning the Derby? A third prep race! He did not have the foundation with only two preps. Hit the brick wall down the stretch did he not? Foundation Foundation Foundation...chant it with me now!!!

Went on after the Derby (3rd prep we will call it) and destroyed all competition. We should have easily witnessed a Triple crown winner but we did not. Do what you want come May 5th..but it will be an interesting thread when the race is complete to look back at figure who is right and who is wrong on historical trends of Derby winners.

Java OUT

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Java Gold

I would have tossed Barbaro based on two preps if that was indeed what occurred prior to the derby. It did not. He still ran 3 preps in 06. If history is any indicator of past success in the Derby it is essential to have the 3 preps. Not to say it will not change in the coming years...but for now it is a proven theory of foundation building to win the Derby.

I posted earlier and I will repeat it...ask Bob Baffert what he felt Point Given was lacking after not winning the Derby? A third prep race! He did not have the foundation with only two preps. Hit the brick wall down the stretch did he not? Foundation Foundation Foundation...chant it with me now!!!

Went on after the Derby (3rd prep we will call it) and destroyed all competition. We should have easily witnessed a Triple crown winner but we did not. Do what you want come May 5th..but it will be an interesting thread when the race is complete to look back at figure who is right and who is wrong on historical trends of Derby winners.

Java OUT

If Barbaro ran on December 31st instead of January 1st would you have tossed him?

[avance2000]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

If Barbaro ran on December 31st instead of January 1st would you have tossed him?

oh yeah.....for sure. he would have only had two starts at 3 in that case, which means he would have no foundation at all. if that race had been on the 31st barbaro would have completely fallen apart in the last eigth and finished 12th.
also, horses that win the derby have rarely run on december 31st. it is known as the "new year's eve curse." why do you think matz waited until the first to run him. he is a clever bugger that matz.

[zippyneedsawin]

Originally Posted by Java Gold

I would have tossed Barbaro based on two preps if that was indeed what occurred prior to the derby. It did not. He still ran 3 preps in 06. If history is any indicator of past success in the Derby it is essential to have the 3 preps. Not to say it will not change in the coming years...but for now it is a proven theory of foundation building to win the Derby.

I posted earlier and I will repeat it...ask Bob Baffert what he felt Point Given was lacking after not winning the Derby? A third prep race! He did not have the foundation with only two preps. Hit the brick wall down the stretch did he not? Foundation Foundation Foundation...chant it with me now!!!

Went on after the Derby (3rd prep we will call it) and destroyed all competition. We should have easily witnessed a Triple crown winner but we did not. Do what you want come May 5th..but it will be an interesting thread when the race is complete to look back at figure who is right and who is wrong on historical trends of Derby winners.

Java OUT

really? I may be mistaken, but I thought Baffert said he wouldn't have changed PG's training leading up to the derby. I'm not disagreeing with the idea that 3 preps is a good idea, I just don't think a horse should be completely tossed based on it.