Bailey vs. Azeri

[disappearingdan_akaplaya]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Bailey rode Roar Emotion exactly as she figured to be ridden. It was Day's job to deal with it, and Lukas's, and they failed to do so.

Smarty Jones lost the Belmont because eventually Stewart Elliot was forced to make actual riding decisions on that horse. Not surprisingly he failed miserably.

well this debate will never end but i think elliot made the right choice that day, he couldnt just sit out wide all the way around, smarty woulda been beaten by more had he done that

[blackthroatedwind]

The Triple Crown offers a myriad of challenges to any horse and that is the real reason why it is so elusive and difficult to win. Inevitably in a challenging three race series even the best horse will be faced with situations that prevent it from overcoming the obstacles. More often than not the Derby is the toughest race due to the extreme field size. Smarty Jones's Derby was dramatically compromised by the thunderstorms that turned the track into a quagmire and prevented a true race from being run. But, ultimately he was unable to succeed in all three races, whether it was rider error or a more fairly run race that eventually did him in. Much like Afleet Alex and Point Given, Smarty Jones was most likely the best horse of his generation, but not good enough to win the Triple Crown. That doesn't diminish his talents....it is merely the reality of the situation.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Much like Afleet Alex and Point Given, Smarty Jones was most likely the best horse of his generation, but not good enough to win the Triple Crown.

IMO, compared to the rest of their crops, all three of them were easily good enough to win the triple crown, they just didn't do it.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

IMO, compared to the rest of their crops, all three of them were easily good enough to win the triple crown, they just didn't do it.

They didn't " just not do it. " They lost becuase they weren't so vastly superior to their opposition to overcome all the obstacles the Triple Crown presented.

Sure each could have won the race they lost if they ran it ten times....but each would have lost another leg had they run that one ten times.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

They didn't " just not do it. " They lost becuase they weren't so vastly superior to their opposition to overcome all the obstacles the Triple Crown presented.

I hear ya.

But, each of them were good enough to do it. In one case (PG Derby) a horse just didn't fire - and in two cases (AA Derby & and SJ Belmont) I think they both clearly ran the best race of anyone - albiet in losing efforts.

You look at a horse like Real Quiet - who was smoked by Indian Charlie in the SA Derby and had embarassing losses in Northern California and at Santa Fe Downs earlier on....with a highly criticized Belmont ride, he came within a nosebob of a triple crown sweep.

I do understand your point, however, contrary to recent history and all the stats, I'm not really sure you have to be so vastly superior to your opposition to sweep the series. It just seems that way.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I hear ya.

But, each of them were good enough to do it. In one case (PG Derby) a horse just didn't fire - and in two cases (AA Derby & and SJ Belmont) I think they both clearly ran the best race of anyone - albiet in losing efforts.

You look at a horse like Real Quiet - who was smoked by Indian Charlie in the SA Derby and had embarassing losses in Northern California and at Santa Fe Downs earlier on....with a highly criticized Belmont ride, he came within a nosebob of a triple crown sweep.

I do understand your point, however, contrary to recent history and all the stats, I'm not really sure you have to be so vastly superior to your opposition to sweep the series. It just seems that way.

Same with Silver Charm. A lot of people speculated that, because of the type of heart he had, if he had seen Touch Gold coming up on him in the Belmont, he might have dug in and held him off. What people forget is that had it not been for horrible racing luck in the Preakness, Touch Gold would have won that race too and he, not Silver Charm would have been the dual classic winner. Instead it was SC that got the honors. I think in his case, not only was he not vastly superior, I don't even think he was superior at all.

[miraja2]

To me the key to the '04 TC has always been that on a dry surface going 12f, Smarty Jones was simply not that much better than Birdstone....if he was even better at all under those particular conditions.
Clearly Smarty was the superior animal overall. Smarty was, I believe, vastly superior to Birdstone at any distance up to and including 10f. He was also vastly superior to Birdstone on an off track. But at 12f on a dry track, he was NOT vastly superior.
Therfore, when Smarty was faced with an unfavorable pace and position scenario like he was that day, he couldn't defeat Birdstone.
When people that say that JB "cost Smarty the TC" with his ride on Eddington that day, I think they are really simplifying what happened to the point of absurdity.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

That's definitely debateable. I agree that Touch Gold had an awful trip in the Preakness, and while he was probably best in that race that day, I don't know if for sure you can say he would have won. I think what Silver Charm went on to do after the Triple Crown showed he was the superior horse.

If Touch Gold had been able to stay healthy, I'm not sure that Silver Charm would have shown he was superior. The end result is clearly that SC accomplished more. But when both horses were at their best, I'd take Touch Gold over him every time.