bellamy road was retired

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Everyone in the business thought BM's Travers performance was awesome under the circumstances. Everyone I talked to thought that race vaildated what a good horse he was.

Everyting you said is correct. He had been off for a while, he only had a few works, there's no way he was ready to go the distance, he set fast fractions and not only that he was still injured. He had all those things going agaisnt him yet he still ran a good 2nd to a good horse in Flower Alley.

It was an awesome perfomance under the circumstances.

Hmmm ... I think we all have a different definition of what "an awesome performance" is.

To me ... a second-place finish to a rather average Travers winner is ... a second-place finish to a rather average Travers winner.

Circumstances may have prevented Bellamy Road from running a better race that day ... but ... the fact is ... they did. And the end result of his effort was far from awesome.

Given better handling ... better luck ... better karma ... he may have run a lot more often ... with a lot better results. But he didn't.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by oracle80

Gee,
Thats kinda hard to do when you have a splint thats all screwed up near the tendon.
Or if you are Smarty, hard to do when your ankles have eroded down to nothing(just a "rumor" I heard).
I don't hold injuries against horses, any horse.

Again, this must just be a comprehension thing because its becoming consistent.

You cant hold injuries against horses. But at the same time, you cant hypothesize what they "would have" done if not injured. The fact is, soundness has a lot to do with how much a horse accomplishes.

You look at pure talent when defining "greatness". Thats fine. I look more at what they accomplish on the track. Neither is right or wrong.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

I guess then what it comes down to how you define "great". For me, it takes more than two efforts in restricted races. Its obvious he had the talent to be a great horse. The Wood was, again, the most dominating prep ive ever seen.

For me, it takes more than just two races. For me, they have to beat the best around and do it consistently.

I think it just depends what question you are answering. If someone asks you who were the most talented horses you've ever seen, that would be a different question from what horses accomplished the most.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think it just depends what question you are answering. If someone asks you who were the most talented horses you've ever seen, that would be a different question from what horses accomplished the most.

too true!!

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think it just depends what question you are answering. If someone asks you who were the most talented horses you've ever seen, that would be a different question from what horses accomplished the most.

True. Again, how do you define "greatness"? If its just the perception of pure talent, then by all means, BM was great. If its by accomplishment, he was far from it.

Heck, Lamtarra could have been one of the greatest ever to run if just judging by talent.

Originally Posted by dalakhani

True. Again, how do you define "greatness"? If its just the perception of pure talent, then by all means, BM was great. If its by accomplishment, he was far from it.

Heck, Lamtarra could have been one of the greatest ever to run if just judging by talent.

And just who the **** would argue that Lamtarra wasn't great?
Look, they don't have to run 100 times to be great in my book. I only have to see it twice. One time to define it, another time to prove the first one ain't a fluke.

Originally Posted by oracle80

BB,
you are way off base here. His Wood and travers were not theoretical. I watched one on tv, and saw the other one live. I'm quite sure they happened. How many times do you have to see great before you know a horse is great.
Ask anyone who ever saw landaluce run if she was great.

Landaluce had a terrific record as a 2YO in California ... and showed tremendous potential ... which she never got to fulfill ... just like Hoist The Flag whom I cited previously.

Bellamy Road won one G1 race ... and placed in another. It takes a lot of talent to do that ... but that's all he did.

Arts And Letters won 7 G1 races as a 3YO ... including his final 6 in a row ... defeating older champions along the way ... and placed in 5 others earlier in the year. I have no doubt about how good he was.

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Landaluce had a terrific record as a 2YO in California ... and showed tremendous potential ... which she never got to fulfill ... just like Hoist The Flag whom I cited previously.

Bellamy Road won one G1 race ... and placed in another. It takes a lot of talent to do that ... but that's all he did.

Arts And Letters won 7 G1 races as a 3YO ... including his final 6 in a row ... defeating older champions along the way ... and placed in 5 others earlier in the year. I have no doubt about how good he was.

I have no doubts about Landaluce either.

Originally Posted by dalakhani

True. Again, how do you define "greatness"? If its just the perception of pure talent, then by all means, BM was great. If its by accomplishment, he was far from it.

Heck, Lamtarra could have been one of the greatest ever to run if just judging by talent.

Lammtarra won the three most important races in Europe as a 3YO ... twice defeating large fields of the best older horses.

There's no doubt that he was great ... he proved it on the track.

Originally Posted by oracle80

I have no doubts about Landaluce either.

She never won a race as a 3YO ... or 4YO, 5YO, etc.

She never raced outside of California.

She had a single race around two turns ... which she won by two narrowing lengths over a field nonentities.

She never defeated colts.

She never defeated older fillies and mares.

There IS some room for doubt ... but ... we'll never know until we get to heaven ... or at least I'll find out and let you know.

That's why woulda/shoulda/coulda doesn't ... in fact, can't ... count.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Hmmm ... I think we all have a different definition of what "an awesome performance" is.

To me ... a second-place finish to a rather average Travers winner is ... a second-place finish to a rather average Travers winner.

Circumstances may have prevented Bellamy Road from running a better race that day ... but ... the fact is ... they did. And the end result of his effort was far from awesome.

Given better handling ... better luck ... better karma ... he may have run a lot more often ... with a lot better results. But he didn't.

You're not going to make money buying horses or betting on horses if all you can see is the end result. You have to look deeper than that to make a good assessment.

Wow..I don't even have to read through this thread to know that someone must have pissed Oracle off for this thread to get this long....

Originally Posted by Cunningham Racing

Wow..I don't even have to read through this thread to know that someone must have pissed Oracle off for this thread to get this long....

Mike never gets "pissed" ... he's much too gentlemanly for that ...

... he merely asserts his opinions with vigor.

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Mike never gets "pissed" ... he's much too gentlemanly for that ...

... he merely asserts his opinions with vigor.

Originally Posted by Cunningham Racing

Wow..I don't even have to read through this thread to know that someone must have pissed Oracle off for this thread to get this long....

Actually Joel I piped in quite late in the thread.
I rather enjoy arguing with Bold Brooklynite. He actually admits it when he is wrong. Its rather refreshing.

[Scurlogue Champ]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Lammtarra won the three most important races in Europe as a 3YO ... twice defeating large fields of the best older horses.

There's no doubt that he was great ... he proved it on the track.

Agree totally.

His run in the Derby was tremendous

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by oracle80

Apparently you didn't see his Travers, which anyone with a true understanding of the game and circumstances knows:
It was not the trainers fault that he had to run there.
The horse was coming off an injury and a layoff and had FOUR breezes, none longer than 5f for his race preparation.
He lost to eventual BCC runner up Flower Alley who was razor sharp at the time.
He beat the rest of the field by a city block. Including Rooman Ruler who had just won the haskell and returned off that race to run RHT to a length.

I won't go into it again. If you follow the game and really know what you are seeing, his Travers will always remain one of the most incredible efforts of raw talent and guts that you will ever see on a racetrack.
If you don't follow the game and don't understand what you are seeing or anything about training and preparation as it relates to performance, then you don't get it and most likely never will.

*Wild Applause*

Ooops ... this was supposed to be a new thread.

[Scurlogue Champ]

Originally Posted by merasmag

moodwalker-u were way off base...if u ever cared what my opinion of flower alley was u would know you have insulted me and, more importantly, a great horse (and when I say great, i mean hurricane run great)

What are you talking about? And how have I insulted you?

And what in the hell is "hurricane run great?"

Is he all of a sudden one of the greatest too?

[Scurlogue Champ]

[quote=merasmag]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

apparently you missed all the talk about candy rides greatness after he beat MDO in his last start...


shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as bellamy road, especially the latter

Candy Ride not in the same breath as Bellamy Road? Are you kidding me?

6 for 6 lifetime, 3 on turf and 3 on dirt. Record mile in Argentina in 1:32 flat, triple G1 winner.

In your opinion, that doesn't stack up to winning the Wood and the Cradle?