Good Lord another pletcher freak

[Pointg5]

Originally Posted by Betsy

I don't think anyone is meaning to throw cold water on your enthusiasm, Oracle, but there are plenty of well-bred (better bred than this one, though he's well-bred himself, obviously) babies that haven't even begun serious training yet. As for Todd's other 2 year olds, again - they look like the typical, precocious colts that we all get excited about (and understandably so - I love 2 year olds; they're so promising and it's fun when you latch onto one) early on. So far, Out of Gwedda and Scat Daddy are fast, but we've seen these types before - they end up fading once the distances lengthen and the blue-bloods start showing up. Take my comments with a grain of salt, though - I just have a problem, period, giving any horse any race (this is nothing personal against Circular Quay) or over-hyping them off of a few starts.

Todd actually also has a very nice 2 year old filly named Rags To Riches; she's a 1/2 to Jazil and ran a sneaky good fourth on Belmont Day at Churchill Downs (after a slow start and wide trip). She's one who will certainly love longer distances..........It does seem like every spring we say that Pletcher will dominate the baby races and he does......the early ones. Come the longer, bigger Fall races, others have passed his babies by.

Why is everyone so hung up on breeding?

Once they hit the track it means very little. Was everyone drueling over Afleet Alex's breeding in his 2yo year, no, but he worked out pretty well. I guess what I am trying to say is this whole breeding thing, makes me a little crazy, because it's not like at the 1/8th pole they stop the race and say "well I am by so and so, so I should win." I don't get why about this time of year, everyone checks the breeding of what some of these trainers are holding and deems them Triple Crown Prospects, that may be, but let's get them on the track. That is 10 times more insane than what Oracle is saying, at least this horse showed he could win. I don't care if CQ was by a $5k Claimer, when I finally got home and watched the race last night, I thought it was impressive, I liked the way he was going at the end.

[Exceller]

Originally Posted by Pointg5

Why is everyone so hung up on breeding?

Once they hit the track it means very little. Was everyone drueling over Afleet Alex's breeding in his 2yo year, no, but he worked out pretty well. I guess what I am trying to say is this whole breeding thing, makes me a little crazy, because it's not like at the 1/8th pole they stop the race and say "well I am by so and so, so I should win." I don't get why about this time of year, everyone checks the breeding of what some of these trainers are holding and deems them Triple Crown Prospects, that may be, but let's get them on the track. That is 10 times more insane than what Oracle is saying, at least this horse showed he could win. I don't care if CQ was by a $5k Claimer, when I finally got home and watched the race last night, I thought it was impressive, I liked the way he was going at the end.

Breeding is everything if you are talking KY Derby prospect. So many of these 2yr olds are bred for speed that won't make it past 8F but can win in these shorter races.

[Pointg5]

Originally Posted by Exceller

Breeding is everything if you are talking KY Derby prospect. So many of these 2yr olds are bred for speed that won't make it past 8F but can win in these shorter races.

Smarty could carry his speed short and long, I don't care who a horse is by, once they prove it on the track. People that sit around and study pedigrees and carry on and on with the better bred nonsense, usually no very little else except pedigrees and who's better bred. These are the same people that said Barbaro couldn't win the Derby, because of RAN in the Dam sire line, that didn't work out so good for them....

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Pointg5

Smarty could carry his speed short and long, I don't care who a horse is by, once they prove it on the track. People that sit around and study pedigrees and carry on and on with the better bred nonsense, usually no very little else except pedigrees and who's better bred. These are the same people that said Barbaro couldn't win the Derby, because of RAN in the Dam sire line, that didn't work out so good for them....

Pedigree does matter! There are always going to be exceptions to the rule, but if a horse like this 2yo breaks his maiden impressively (I just watched it, and damn it WAS impressive) the fact that he is by a horse that won the Derby, Belmont, and Travers makes it MORE LIKELY that he will like the added distance of races like the Champaign or the BC Juvenile. Are there horses that run differently on the track then their pedigree indicates? OF COURSE! But in general there IS a reason that a horse like Thunder Gulch had a higher stud fee than some other - less accomplished - stallions. In addition to being by Thunder Gulch, this 2yo's dam (Circle of Life) was also a G1 winner. This pedigree + an impressive debut = a horse to watch for the major 2 yo stakes this summer and fall.

[Pointg5]

Originally Posted by miraja2

Pedigree does matter! There are always going to be exceptions to the rule, but if a horse like this 2yo breaks his maiden impressively (I just watched it, and damn it WAS impressive) the fact that he is by a horse that won the Derby, Belmont, and Travers makes it MORE LIKELY that he will like the added distance of races like the Champaign or the BC Juvenile. Are there horses that run differently on the track then their pedigree indicates? OF COURSE! But in general there IS a reason that a horse like Thunder Gulch had a higher stud fee than some other - less accomplished - stallions. In addition to being by Thunder Gulch, this 2yo's dam (Circle of Life) was also a G1 winner. This pedigree + an impressive debut = a horse to watch for the major 2 yo stakes this summer and fall.

You make a valid arguement, but to say that there's "better bred" horses that are waiting to run and will be better horses, because of their pedigree, that's nonsense. There's also reasons why high priced horses are busts as well, remember Checkov, we had people annointing him as a great horse, because he cost $4 million, where's he today, has he cleared NW1X?

[Betsy]

Originally Posted by Pointg5

You make a valid arguement, but to say that there's "better bred" horses that are waiting to run and will be better horses, because of their pedigree, that's nonsense. There's also reasons why high priced horses are busts as well, remember Checkov, we had people annointing him as a great horse, because he cost $4 million, where's he today, has he cleared NW1X?

Really? Do you know for certain that there aren't any better bred horses waiting to run? They've all run already? How do you know there aren't ten two year olds better than CQ (no matter their pedigrees)? Are we all supposed to agree with you that this is the greatest two year old of the year? If so, I beg to differ. He may end up proving to be that or he may end up a dud- he may end up being somewhere in between. All I am saying is that it is VERY early in the baby season for me to be declaring this colt a champion. By the way, there have been plenty of good horses with great pedigrees, too.

[Pointg5]

Originally Posted by Betsy

Really? Do you know for certain that there aren't any better bred horses waiting to run? They've all run already? How do you know there aren't ten two year olds better than CQ (no matter their pedigrees)? Are we all supposed to agree with you that this is the greatest two year old of the year? If so, I beg to differ. He may end up proving to be that or he may end up a dud- he may end up being somewhere in between. All I am saying is that it is VERY early in the baby season for me to be declaring this colt a champion. By the way, there have been plenty of good horses with great pedigrees, too.

Tell me how you quantify better bred?

I think he's a nice horse and we'll see what he does, who knows?

There certainly could be more talented horses though, not better bred, because that's an opinion, not a fact. If they are faster and beat him, they are more talented, not better bred.

[Pedigree Ann]

Originally Posted by Pointg5

Smarty could carry his speed short and long, I don't care who a horse is by, once they prove it on the track. People that sit around and study pedigrees and carry on and on with the better bred nonsense, usually no very little else except pedigrees and who's better bred. These are the same people that said Barbaro couldn't win the Derby, because of RAN in the Dam sire line, that didn't work out so good for them....

Sorry to bust the bubble, but the people who really KNOW pedigrees had no doubt about Barbaro; his sire stayed and his dam stayed. The half-baked pedigree ideas of the average racing analyst do not reflect the opinions of the pedigree consultants to top breeders and other real experts. Check out what Avalyn Hunter wrote at the Blood-Horse (or was it TT?).

[Pointg5]

Originally Posted by Pedigree Ann

Sorry to bust the bubble, but the people who really KNOW pedigrees had no doubt about Barbaro; his sire stayed and his dam stayed. The half-baked pedigree ideas of the average racing analyst do not reflect the opinions of the pedigree consultants to top breeders and other real experts. Check out what Avalyn Hunter wrote at the Blood-Horse (or was it TT?).

LOL, another pedigree blowhard!

[Pointg5]

Originally Posted by Pointg5

LOL, another pedigree blowhard!

Sorry, that was uncalled for, I just have no time for the whole breeding nonsense. If I ever need a cure for insomnia, I would read that article. Ofcourse breeding is important, but to say that a certain horse will be good, based on breeding makes my headspin. I know people love to research and go back and this and that and if that's your cup of tea, go for it. Once they hit the track and show talent, it doesn't matter what their breeding is. If you go back far enough in any horses pedigree, they're probably all well bred, just because someone is willing to shell out millions doesn't make the horse a champion or well bred.

[Betsy]

Originally Posted by Pointg5

Why is everyone so hung up on breeding?

Once they hit the track it means very little. Was everyone drueling over Afleet Alex's breeding in his 2yo year, no, but he worked out pretty well. I guess what I am trying to say is this whole breeding thing, makes me a little crazy, because it's not like at the 1/8th pole they stop the race and say "well I am by so and so, so I should win." I don't get why about this time of year, everyone checks the breeding of what some of these trainers are holding and deems them Triple Crown Prospects, that may be, but let's get them on the track. That is 10 times more insane than what Oracle is saying, at least this horse showed he could win. I don't care if CQ was by a $5k Claimer, when I finally got home and watched the race last night, I thought it was impressive, I liked the way he was going at the end.

It's the truth, though. I'm sure CQ was very impressive, but there ARE plenty of well-bred and/or talented horses out there that haven't set foot on a track yet. There may yet be some babies that are better than CQ or there may not be - I don't like to make premature proclamations, that's all. If other's don't believe it's premature, that's fine too. We'll know in a few months, anyway.