Ruffian was a mediocre filly

[tector]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I glanced at the article. It said Foolish Pleasure won the KY Derby and the Preakness. I stopped reading.

Why would you trust anything after that?

It's possible it is a misquote, I agree. If so, I'd expect him to call them on it, however.

[Calzone Lord]

I don't understand what the point was in writing about match races.

They aren't practical anymore.

Do betters want them? No. Here's a link to the chart of the Battle of the Sexes match race at Del Mar:

http://www.equibase.com/premium/eqbP...try=USA&race=4

Woke Up Dreamin was the 1-to-2 favorite in the betting. Chester's Choice, at odds of 4-to-5 was the underdog in the race.

No one wants to bet a race where the underdog is odds-on.

Obviously, takeout rates have steadily risen over the years and that's a major reason why match races have become such absolute turds as events.

The other reason is because handicaps have basically become a thing of the past. Seabiscuit and War Admiral were the dominant older horses and from different regions.

It wouldn't have been desirable to see Seabiscuit and War Admiral come together for a meeting -- the handicapper assign more weight to one than the other -- and a mare like Esposa getting an 18lbs weight break and beating the both of them in a driving finish, with a razor sharp minor stakes type getting 30lbs and right there at the finish with the trio.

The match race goal is a clean weight-for-age event between the most popular horses.

[Calzone Lord]

I got to get going, but here's Whirlaway's 4-year-old season.



Whirlaway was the only horse in history to officially win the Triple Crown and Travers.

He started 22 times at age 4 in all the important races, and his record that season was 22-12-8-2.

18 of the 22 races were handicaps. Of the four that weren't -- one was an ALW race on June 22nd that was probably designed to keep his weight imposts as favorable as possible for the upcoming big handicaps. The goal to win as unimpressively as humanly possible.

The second non-handicap was a special match-race against fellow Hall Of Famer Alsab. Whirlaway was a closer, and a poor fit for match races, but you can't turn down races like that.

The third non-handicap was the Jockey Club Gold Cup at 2 miles. Only 3 others showed up. Whirlaway and Alsab dominated the race. It was more than 8 lengths back to 3rd. Whirlaway won. One week later, 12 horses showed up in the New York Handicap at Belmont to face Whirlaway and Alsab under handicap conditions.

The final non-handicap was the Pimlico Special. Whirlaway won that race in a walk-over.

[slotdirt]

22 starts and he was the favorite every time.

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

22 starts and he was the favorite every time.

Whirlaway was a champion 2-year-old and he was Horse of the Year at ages 3 and 4.

He finished 1st, 2nd, or 3rd in 48 straight races and was an immensely popular horse.

[ShadowRoll]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

Whirlaway was a champion 2-year-old and he was Horse of the Year at ages 3 and 4.

He finished 1st, 2nd, or 3rd in 48 straight races and was an immensely popular horse.

But you wouldn't want to meet him in a dark alley.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

Whirlaway was a champion 2-year-old and he was Horse of the Year at ages 3 and 4.

He finished 1st, 2nd, or 3rd in 48 straight races and was an immensely popular horse.

And George Woolf still thought Seabiscuit was a better horse.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

And George Woolf still thought Seabiscuit was a better horse.

too much time in the hot box?

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by tector

It's possible it is a misquote, I agree. If so, I'd expect him to call them on it, however.

I'm surprised this writer didn't ask him several follow-up questions.

Baeza has a point that Ruffian was tactically one-dimensional in that she never rated from off the pace. To call her mediocre is comical and lunacy. She was a devastating sprinter and though not a great figure horse routing, she was a Grade 1 winner at 12 furlongs.

More than a few great fillies had one-dimensional running styles. Zenyatta being the most extreme example. She had absolutely no tactical speed at all and calling her "a big slug" would be kind. While massively overrated, anyone who thinks she was a 'mediocre mare' would be saying something moronic.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

I'm surprised this writer didn't ask him several follow-up questions.

Baeza has a point that Ruffian was tactically one-dimensional in that she never rated from off the pace. To call her mediocre is comical and lunacy. She was a devastating sprinter and though not a great figure horse routing, she was a Grade 1 winner at 12 furlongs.

More than a few great fillies had one-dimensional running styles. Zenyatta being the most extreme example. She had absolutely no tactical speed at all and calling her "a big slug" would be kind. While massively overrated, anyone who thinks she was a 'mediocre mare' would be saying something moronic.

to all.

and he probably didn't ask follow ups because he may not have known enough about the subject to know what to ask. ruffian lead at every call of every race, that might indicate one dimensional-but she absolutely was not mediocre.