Quote:
Originally Posted by dalakhani
Weak, terrible its all semantics. Same implication. You call the horses he beat "good" and then say it was a weak crop. Okay...I dont get it but maybe that is tainer speak.
What evidence was there that Sakhee would do so well? How about Dubai Millenium or Giants Causeway? Before they raced on dirt, how would you have known? To the really good ones, it often times doesnt make a difference.
Some people have this opinion that horse racing is divided up and the sports are completely different. Im not of this opinion. To me, horse racing is horse racing. They are all bred in the same place regardless of where they race.
Lamtarra showed me more talent on the track than Bernardini did. Whether it was on dirt or turf is immaterial in my opnion. But accomplishments? Those three wins (epsom, king george, arc) in starts 2,3,4 are things that Bernardini coudlnt have matched.
|
Whatever...I dont see why a weak crop couldnt have some good horses in it. For instance...the 2008 US 3 year olds...
The evidence is that they DID IT!!! You cant say I think he will do it and have it mean anything. Before they did it was nothing other than guessing. It isnt like his dam was a dirt horse or his sire was a dirt sire.
I find it interesting that the Preakness, Jim Dandy, Travers and JC Gold Cup are somehow not important races or "as important" as the ones you mentioned.
When you say that you have this special talent to distinguish talent in a horse regardless of style of racing, surface or distance it makes me wonder why the rest of us are missing this trait and that you are morphing into a cross between my friend PG and KYRIM.