Gotta love Watchmaker....

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

Keep the faith brother!!

Fyi, why can't Mike say he was the better horse despite losing? You yourself have made the case many times that you don't necessarily go by the race record to determine how good a horse is, that you can just watch them and know how good they are even if they do not win.

True, but when a horse by Albert the Great is a false favorite at 8-5 over a horse established as the class of the field by being a graded stakes winner from the best barn in New York, I wouldn't expect a feature article on how great Nobiz is....he failed the public as the chalk...plain and simple...why should he command the repsect he is getting now? It was expected that he should have won the Champagne and he failed....so why pin a star on his stall?

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Cunningham Racing

True, but when a horse by Albert the Great is a false favorite at 8-5 over a horse established as the class of the field by being a graded stakes winner from the best barn in New York, I wouldn't expect a feature article on how great Nobiz is....he failed the public as the chalk...plain and simple...why should he command the repsect he is getting now? It was expected that he should have won the Champagne and he failed....so why pin a star on his stall?

Its obvious to most.

BTW: What's wrong with being by Albert the Great? Does that automatically disqualify him from being able to win a GR1?

[blackthroatedwind]

Watch's job is to analyze the races. In doing so the odds are irrelevent. HIS analysis, which apparently corresponds to many others here, was that NoBiz ran the best race. He gave his reasons for this. Now, others can disagree, and that's fine and one of the things many of us find enjoyable about racing, in that there are often different interpretations of the same events. Often there are valid points on both sides. Sometimes someone else will point something out not noticed by another that may lead that other person in the right direction in the future. To deny the rightful legitimacy of this is folly.

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Since you have ignored my posts in which your inaccuracies were pointed out, I'm curious, why do you keep bringing up the fact that Nobiz is by Albert the Great? What subtle immature shot are you attempting to make there?

Statistics say that the upside is limited....everybody has their theories and this is mine....it isn't an exact science, obviously, and he could be a freak. But you cannot base theories on outliers....

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Cunningham Racing

Statistics say that the upside is limited....everybody has their theories and this is mine....it isn't an exact science, obviously, and he could be a freak. But you cannot base theories on outliers....

This is all good and fine but it appears then that NoBiz has then already established himself as a freak in this case.

[ArlJim78]

Aren't we talking about a fairly small number of crops from Albert the Great so far? like two.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

Aren't we talking about a fairly small number of crops from Albert the Great so far? like two.

I just posted the same thing. I don't know anything about breeding but I too am confused by this.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I just posted the same thing. I don't know anything about breeding but I too am confused by this.

I think at this point I'm supposed to say "Jinx"

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

This is all good and fine but it appears then that NoBiz has then already established himself as a freak in this case.

He has the chance to be better than his sire...for sure....I like the horse..let me make that clear. But, I still think Scat Daddy is better...I just do....they are both very good though...NLS did gain my respect to a degree...I am just mad that Scat Daddy, who I think was the best horse, isn't getting any respect...REMEMBER, HE DID WIN THE RACE....its almost like the media always has an agenda...just my opinion...I've followed Mike for a while and I think I have a feel for his style.....

[blackthroatedwind]

I'm not a result oriented guy, Joel, and objectively I think NoBiz ran the best race Saturday. I've made a lot of money in my life at the racetrack betting on horses that lost races but ran much better than their results would indicate. This, in fact, is the basic job of a horseplayer.

I understand you have liked Scat Daddy for quite a while, as has the barn, and that's great and I can certainly understand how enjoyable it must be for you to see him doing well. However, I would hardly say he isn't getting the respect he deserves simply because someone analyzed the Champagne and felt NoBiz ran the best race. That doesn't take away from Scat Daddy's good performance, it is just once again is one man's opinion of the race.

I'm guessing NoBiz's connections would be extremely excited at the prospect of him being even as good as Albert the Great who was most certainly an excellent racehorse with the career accomplishments to prove it.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Cunningham Racing

Statistics say that the upside is limited....everybody has their theories and this is mine....it isn't an exact science, obviously, and he could be a freak. But you cannot base theories on outliers....

OK, I don't know much about breeding, and you obviously know a ton more than me, but isn't this Albert the Great's second crop? How reliable can statistics be at this point especially concerning the " upside " of his foals?

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

OK, I don't know much about breeding, and you obviously know a ton more than me, but isn't this Albert the Great's second crop? How reliable can statistics be at this point especially concerning the " upside " of his foals?

I almost wrote word for word the same post, but instead shortened my version.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

OK, I don't know much about breeding, and you obviously know a ton more than me, but isn't this Albert the Great's second crop? How reliable can statistics be at this point especially concerning the " upside " of his foals?

It is how I feel about his breeding...not so much about his produce record...again, it is a theory that has worked for me and put me on a lot of real racehorses at an early stage (Bernardini) and taken me off a lot of race horses at an early stage...far more than I can list...you use what works for you...everyone in this game builds convictions and that is one of mine..

Put it this way, I'm a breeder and I wouldn't breed to Albert the Great....does that mean he sucks?..No...just my convictions...

..his yearlings I've seen are actually not all that bad in the flesh, but then again, Unaccounted For's yearlings also looked good in the flesh......