7/29 (SAR): Vanderbilt (G1), Bwlg Grn, Jim Dandy, Amsterdam (G2's)

[King Glorious]

I could understand if there were actual good horses in the race to avoid but there weren't. I think if you have a 3yo with four legs, it's worth taking a shot against the "leaders" of this division. Old rules about the proper progressions have to be discarded. This is not the same game of the 70s, 80s, and 90s.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I could understand if there were actual good horses in the race to avoid but there weren't. I think if you have a 3yo with four legs, it's worth taking a shot against the "leaders" of this division. Old rules about the proper progressions have to be discarded. This is not the same game of the 70s, 80s, and 90s.

This is over-the-top. The equine physical apparatus has not changed in this timeframe. You will drive the sport into a complete nosedive once you "discard" the essential fact that the racehorse is a living, breathing animal. Never mind solidifying 4-5 horse fields.

Am I crazy, but are we supposed to be happy Pavel ran off-the-board (and almost beat two classic winners) simply because for about a furlong, he displayed the talent that was apparent in his previous race?

The race was a complete waste. It certainly didn't set him up for a big race in the Travers.

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

This is over-the-top. The equine physical apparatus has not changed in this timeframe. You will drive the sport into a complete nosedive once you "discard" the essential fact that the racehorse is a living, breathing animal. Never mind solidifying 4-5 horse fields.

Am I crazy, but are we supposed to be happy Pavel ran off-the-board (and almost beat two classic winners) simply because for about a furlong, he displayed the talent that was apparent in his previous race?

The race was a complete waste. It certainly didn't set him up for a big race in the Travers.

I agree with this, seems like a the wrong plan with a good horse, and this is after he ran well. I appreciate the trainer/owner having the guts to take chances, which has worked in the past, but this was a little bit of a reach.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

This is over-the-top. The equine physical apparatus has not changed in this timeframe. You will drive the sport into a complete nosedive once you "discard" the essential fact that the racehorse is a living, breathing animal. Never mind solidifying 4-5 horse fields.

Am I crazy, but are we supposed to be happy Pavel ran off-the-board (and almost beat two classic winners) simply because for about a furlong, he displayed the talent that was apparent in his previous race?

The race was a complete waste. It certainly didn't set him up for a big race in the Travers.

My point was that if this was a nw1x race at the same distance on this same track and date, would you have a problem with it. I'm wondering if your issue was more with the conditions or with the supposed class of the race? If it was with the class, I'm saying there was no need to worry because the class wasn't really as classy as the level would have suggested. I think in many cases, where we would expect to see the old, logical progressions, it's wasted opportunity because the difference between the good and the bad is razor thin and getting smaller each year. With shorter and shorter careers, might as well throw them in deep early.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

My point was that if this was a nw1x race at the same distance on this same track and date, would you have a problem with it.

Not only class level, but distance, too. As I said earlier, I would have stomached a start in the Amsterdam (Coal Front was relatively untested himself).

I'm wondering if your issue was more with the conditions or with the supposed class of the race? If it was with the class, I'm saying there was no need to worry because the class wasn't really as classy as the level would have suggested.

You can disparage a Derby winner and a Preakness winner (never mind the eventual winner, who had Grade 1 form on turf), as seems to be the consensus following the race, but the fact of the matter is they held a ton over Pavel in terms of experience, stamina, shipping, etc. They were clearly better than a non-winners 1x race where logically Pavel should have landed after his debut.

Whether or not Pavel is ultimately superior to those horses, those seemingly insignificant details are important, not just for this race, but for races going forward.

I think in many cases, where we would expect to see the old, logical progressions, it's wasted opportunity because the difference between the good and the bad is razor thin and getting smaller each year.

This ignores the difference between experience and naivety, which is perennially on display in 2yo maiden special weights across the country.

With shorter and shorter careers, might as well throw them in deep early.

This is a fatalist's approach and results in a vicious circle.