The Travers

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Port Conway Lane

My point is that he would join those four in winning both premier Summer races.
I didn't say he stacks up to the four in question but for you to say "one word answer, LAST" I'm pretty confident he's closer to those four than at least seven others on the list are to him. He is in the process of developing as all 3yo's are and once in a while it's refreshing to see a top 2yo continue on to a competitive season.

Lost Mountain? Please

Lost Mountain won the race with a 107 Beyer and the next out Travers 1-2 finishers were second and third to him. It's not like his Haskell performance would have left him smoked by todays winner.

Here's a 3-year-old who went 3-for-11 .... Captain Steve.



He took on older horses in the Ky Cup, Goodwood, and Breeders Cup Classic - and beat every single one of them. The older Golden Missile was 2nd to him in the KY Cup with the Hollywood Gold Cup winner 3rd. Fellow 3yo Tiznow beat him in the Goodwood and fellow 3yo's Tiznow and Giant's Causeway beat him in the BC Classic. In fact, 3yo Albert The Great was 4th in that years Breeders Cup Classic after winning the JCGC with a 119 Beyer against olders in his prior start.

If you go 30 horses deep ... that 3yo crop of 2000 crushes any I've seen since. It's tough to put together a great resume when the opposition you face doesn't suck.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Lost Mountain won the race with a 107 Beyer and the next out Travers 1-2 finishers were second and third to him. It's not like his Haskell performance would have left him smoked by todays winner.

Here's a 3-year-old who went 3-for-11 .... Captain Steve.



He took on older horses in the Ky Cup, Goodwood, and Breeders Cup Classic - and beat every single one of them. The older Golden Missile was 2nd to him in the KY Cup with the Hollywood Gold Cup winner 3rd. Fellow 3yo Tiznow beat him in the Goodwood and fellow 3yo's Tiznow and Giant's Causeway beat him in the BC Classic. In fact, 3yo Albert The Great was 4th in that years Breeders Cup Classic after winning the JCGC with a 119 Beyer against olders in his prior start.

If you go 30 horses deep ... that 3yo crop of 2000 crushes any I've seen since. It's tough to put together a great resume when the opposition you face doesn't suck.

Counting Fupeg, 5 of the top 6 from that classic were three year olds. In the distaff, three of the top four were 3 year olds and War Chant won the mile.

More than ready, El corredor, left bank, lido palace.

That was a great year. One could make the case that the older horses sucked that year though. I can only remember LDK being any good.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Counting Fupeg, 5 of the top 6 from that classic were three year olds. In the distaff, three of the top four were 3 year olds and War Chant won the mile.

More than ready, El corredor, left bank, lido palace.

That was a great year. One could make the case that the older horses sucked that year though. I can only remember LDK being any good.

There are A LOT of really solid routers you're leaving out as well.

Also some pretty damn good sprinters - Caller One was a monster as a 3yo. Probably the best 3yo sprinter of the last decade. Horses like Swept Overboard, Trippi, Hook and Ladder, etc.

More Than Ready was 4th in that years Haskell and still got a 106 Beyer. MTR was 0-for-7 lifetime at a mile or further - but ran a couple 106's routing and six of his seven figs were in the 99-to-106 range. More Than Ready was considered like a joke at a mile and beyond because of the record - but put him in with this crop - and his performances are about as good as anything except obviously Eskendarya.

[Port Conway Lane]

Ok so you're using Lost Mountain's 107 beyer as proof of his historic comparison to LAL ? Then I see the pps of a horse who's not even on the list in question. Who by the way looked like a tough customer.

I get that. Some horses are born in the wrong year. But often their measure of talent can be exaggerated because of who they faced just as a horse like
LAL's ability is downgraded because of who he has been beating. There is a median in there somewhere and Beyer numbers aren't the end all in determining how good a horse is. If they were Sinister Minister or Bellamy Road would be household names.

I wouldn't mind seeing Lost Mountain's pps. I bet him in the Derby.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Port Conway Lane

Ok so you're using Lost Mountain's 107 beyer as proof of his historic comparison to LAL ?

It's proof enough that the Lookin At Lucky's who won the Haskell wouldn't have smoked the Lost Mountain who won the Haskell.

[There is a median in there somewhere and Beyer numbers aren't the end all in determining how good a horse is. If they were Sinister Minister or Bellamy Road would be household names. .

They simply determine how fast a horse ran in said race in relation to the speed of the race track. Sinister Minister was never a good horse - but he would have beat the ever loving piss out of Lookin At Lucky if LAL faced him in his 13 length Grade 1 Blue Grass win over an extreme inside speed track.

Bluegrass Cat was beaten 21+ lengths in that Blue Grass - and he ran 2nd in the Derby and Belmont in his next two starts, before winning the Haskell by 7 lengths and ending his career with a 2nd in the Travers.

Strong Contender was beaten 17+ lengths in that Blue Grass - and he came back and later took the Dwyer by 8 and beat Lawyer Ron in the Super Derby.

Wild Syn - who was pathetic beyond belief - went wire-to-wire from the rail in a different edition of the Blue Grass and two well beaten horses came back and ran 1st and 2nd in the Ky Derby three weeks later. That's Keeneland.

Bellamy Road's 17.5 length Grade 1 win Wood number wasn't wrong either - and unlike Sinister Minister his performance wasn't a fluke caused by a crazy bias. Scrappy T. was 3rd by 18+ and took a Grade 3 at 7/1 next out followed by a 2nd place finish in the Preakness.

If you think Lookin at Lucky wins that Wood Memorial if he was entered that day - you're a total clown.

Resumes that are put together against real nice N1X alw horses like First Dude, or the 0-for-forever Jackson Bend, or tough luck Trappe Shot in his Graded Stakes debut would look a lot better if the figures weren't so weak.

Freaking Milwaukee Brew ran a 110 Beyer when he was 3rd in the Haskell - and he was what - like the 37th best 3yo to race that year?

[Port Conway Lane]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

It's proof enough that the Lookin At Lucky's who won the Haskell wouldn't have smoked the Lost Mountain who won the Haskell.




They simply determine how fast a horse ran in said race in relation to the speed of the race track. Sinister Minister was never a good horse - but he would have beat the ever loving piss out of Lookin At Lucky if LAL faced him in his 13 length Grade 1 Blue Grass win over an extreme inside speed track.

Bluegrass Cat was beaten 21+ lengths in that Blue Grass - and he ran 2nd in the Derby and Belmont in his next two starts, before winning the Haskell by 7 lengths and ending his career with a 2nd in the Travers.

Strong Contender was beaten 17+ lengths in that Blue Grass - and he came back and later took the Dwyer by 8 and beat Lawyer Ron in the Super Derby.

Wild Syn - who was pathetic beyond belief - went wire-to-wire from the rail in a different edition of the Blue Grass and two well beaten horses came back and ran 1st and 2nd in the Ky Derby three weeks later. That's Keeneland.

Bellamy Road's 17.5 length Grade 1 win Wood number wasn't wrong either - and unlike Sinister Minister his performance wasn't a fluke caused by a crazy bias. Scrappy T. was 3rd by 18+ and took a Grade 3 at 7/1 next out followed by a 2nd place finish in the Preakness.

If you think Lookin at Lucky wins that Wood Memorial if he was entered that day - you're a total clown.

Resumes that are put together against real nice N1X alw horses like First Dude, or the 0-for-forever Jackson Bend, or tough luck Trappe Shot in his Graded Stakes debut would look a lot better if the figures weren't so weak.

Freaking Milwaukee Brew ran a 110 Beyer when he was 3rd in the Haskell - and he was what - like the 37th best 3yo to race that year?

Ok so back to the list in question. If Phil ranked LAL last on that list and did so along the lines of what you are saying, using the beyer number for that given race as the determining factor of how a horse would "rank" among others, not so much how a horse would rank historically among those same horses, then I have no argument.

Simply place the number next to each horse and leave it at that. Don't bother explaining who ran behind LAL because the number is the determining factor.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Port Conway Lane

Simply place the number next to each horse and leave it at that. Don't bother explaining who ran behind LAL because the number is the determining factor.

The horses who ran behind Lookin at Lucky yesterday all sucked - that was obvious going into the race.

Trappe Shot at least had some upside - but he was making his graded stakes debut, had a single route win at the expense of 3 horses, and had a miserable trip yesterday.

First Dude is a VERY nice 1-for-9 horse. His day is coming soon.

Super Saver went Mine That Bird in the Derby - other than that he's lost to Oddysess at Tampa, Line of David at Oaklawn, and was creamed with a perfect trip in the Preakness.

Ice Box is a less talented version of Giacomo.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Port Conway Lane

Ok so you're using Lost Mountain's 107 beyer as proof of his historic comparison to LAL ? Then I see the pps of a horse who's not even on the list in question. Who by the way looked like a tough customer.

I get that. Some horses are born in the wrong year. But often their measure of talent can be exaggerated because of who they faced just as a horse like
LAL's ability is downgraded because of who he has been beating. There is a median in there somewhere and Beyer numbers aren't the end all in determining how good a horse is. If they were Sinister Minister or Bellamy Road would be household names.

I wouldn't mind seeing Lost Mountain's pps. I bet him in the Derby.

Originally Posted by Port Conway Lane

Ok so back to the list in question. If Phil ranked LAL last on that list and did so along the lines of what you are saying, using the beyer number for that given race as the determining factor of how a horse would "rank" among others, not so much how a horse would rank historically among those same horses, then I have no argument.

Simply place the number next to each horse and leave it at that. Don't bother explaining who ran behind LAL because the number is the determining factor.

No, my critical ranking was not based solely on the Beyer numbers assigned. Let's look at this critically- of the 3yo restricted races, the Haskell would rank 4th behind the Derby, Preakness, and Travers for races "I want to win" (given that the Belmont has become somewhat irrelevant in a non-TC year). It's a serious and important race in the landscape of 3yo racing and a race I happen to love. They draw really good/great fields and important horses, benchmark types. I looked at each of the horses and said "do I want them or LaL in a matchup?"

Rachel Alexandra- RA
Big Brown- BB
Any Given Saturday- AGS
Bluegrass Cat- BC
Roman Ruler- tossup
Lion Heart- LH
Peace Rules- PR
War Emblem- WE
Point Given- PG
Dixie Union- DU
Menifee- Menifee
Coronado's Quest- CQ
Touch Gold- TG
Skip Away- SA
Serena's Song- SS
Holy Bull- HB
Kissin Kris- KK
Technology- tossup
Lost Mountain- tossup
Restless Con- LaL
King Glorious- KG
Forty Niner- FN
Bet Twice- BT

So I came up with 3 tossups, 1 yes, and 19 no's. I'd like to know where you disagree with my assessment (if any.) It's an interesting comparison if nothing else.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I would probably rank him a little below average on that list but I certainly wouldn't rank him last.

His performance today surprised me. I thought he was the horse to beat but I thought it was a competitive field. I thought he deserved to be the favorite but I thought he should have been the 5-2 favorite, not the 6-5 favorite. I was totally wrong. He blew them away. He won like a 6-5 shot.

Agree with this.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Even though Kissin Kris ran a fast figure in victory in the Haskell and was 3rd in the BC Classic later in the year ... I would certainly take Lookin At Lucky over him.

Even though Bluegrass Cat won the Haskell by 7 lengths and ran a slightly faster fig than LAL - I'd take LAL.

The rest of your list I agree with back to Technology and Lost Mountain - I'd need to review them.

[parsixfarms]

In light of how easily he won yesterday (and with Drosselmeyer out and Super Saver's Derby looking more like a mud/Churchill-influenced fluke), Lookin at Lucky has a huge leg up on championship honors now. I'd be really surprised if he ended up running in the Travers.

[Sightseek]

So now we know the LOCKS to win a race almost a month from now and three months from now, how about talking about the big race that is actually taking place this week?

[Port Conway Lane]

Originally Posted by philcski

No, my critical ranking was not based solely on the Beyer numbers assigned. Let's look at this critically- of the 3yo restricted races, the Haskell would rank 4th behind the Derby, Preakness, and Travers for races "I want to win" (given that the Belmont has become somewhat irrelevant in a non-TC year). It's a serious and important race in the landscape of 3yo racing and a race I happen to love. They draw really good/great fields and important horses, benchmark types. I looked at each of the horses and said "do I want them or LaL in a matchup?"

Rachel Alexandra- RA
Big Brown- BB
Any Given Saturday- AGS
Bluegrass Cat- BC
Roman Ruler- tossup LAL
Lion Heart- LH
Peace Rules- PR
War Emblem- WE Tossup
Point Given- PG
Dixie Union- DU LAL
Menifee- Menifee LAL
Coronado's Quest- CQ
Touch Gold- TG
Skip Away- SA
Serena's Song- SS
Holy Bull- HB
Kissin Kris- KK LAL
Technology- tossup LAL
Lost Mountain- tossup LAL
Restless Con- LaL
King Glorious- KG
Forty Niner- FN
Bet Twice- BT

So I came up with 3 tossups, 1 yes, and 19 no's. I'd like to know where you disagree with my assessment (if any.) It's an interesting comparison if nothing else.

Up to and including the Haskell the ones in bold would differ from your list.

I stopped reading after the first 20 posts.

Dude.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Port Conway Lane

Up to and including the Haskell the ones in bold would differ from your list.

Better than Menifee and Dixie Union? You must be a huge fan of horses who consistantly beat absolutely garbage fields in time no faster than freaking Omniescent.

War Emblem never finished 2nd or 3rd - he'd stop on a dime or run a hole in the wind .. the kind of horse you always play against underneath in exotics if you don't like him .. but he'd breeze in-hand against LAL.

Menifee was just plain better than LAL. He actually faced real horses and ran several better races.

Dixie Union would beat the ever loving piss out of LAL. Dixie Union was an awesome horse who would be hailed as a super horse in this crop. He beat both Caller One and Swept Overboard twice sprinting. When he won the Haskell - the very good Captain Steve was 2nd, future two-time Santa Anita Handicap winner Milwaukee Brew was 3rd and More Than Ready was 4th. The start before the Haskell he was beaten just a neck by Tiznow and had to give Tiznow 11lbs. He had a 112 Beyer sprinting and a 111 Beyer at 9fs and he faced absolutely amazing competition.

Roman Ruler was nothing special - and I rated him a toss-up with LAL - but he was a very good 2yo sprinter and he beat an ok horse in Flower Alley in the Dwyer and was a good 2nd to the older Rock Hard Ten in the final start of his career.

Here's who finished 2nd to LAL in his Grade 1 wins. Make Music For Me (1-for-10 lifetime), Pulsion (1-for-9 lifetime - most recently 5th in an N1X) Noble's Promise (winless in his last 6 starts) First Dude (1-for-9 lifetime) and Trappe Shot (tough trip horse finally making his graded stakes debut)