Curlin to be m/l fav

Foster Brooks was more like the 70s; he may have done stuff in the 60s but the Dean Martin roasts were 70s. And Bill Hicks I thought was the 80s or maybe the 90s.??

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by easy goer

Foster Brooks was more like the 70s; he may have done stuff in the 60s but the Dean Martin roasts were 70s. And Bill Hicks I thought was the 80s or maybe the 90s.??

hicks did brilliant work in the 80's so you are essentially correct. his career was about 1980-1993. and brooks became well known in 1969 so again, my bad.

thanks for harshing my mellow.

my point was that foster brooks was a one note appeal to the lowest common denominater. he was as funny as cat crap on a radiator.

replace lenny bruce with richard pryor. same point.

bill hicks is irreplaceable.

[Merlinsky]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

hicks did brilliant work in the 80's so you are essentially correct. his career was about 1980-1993. and brooks became well known in 1969 so again, my bad.

thanks for harshing my mellow.

my point was that foster brooks was a one note appeal to the lowest common denominater. he was as funny as cat crap on a radiator.

replace lenny bruce with richard pryor. same point.

bill hicks is irreplaceable.

Did any of those guys go off as the m/l favorite for the Kentucky Derby? (Sorry, just trying to swing the thread back on topic without there being a non sequitur.)

Not to knock Curlin as he's nice and Smart Strike's enjoyable, it's just goofy how some horses are coming into the race this year, be it preps at 3, number of preps period, or what have you. It would almost be kinda funny if a horse that met Somer's rules of thumb won and you had trainers just throw up their hands in confusion. Can somebody do me a favor and put up the top few Beyers from Derby hopefuls? I'm just curious if any of the ones that are getting gushed about don't have a top Beyer approaching what is normal for a Derby winner in recent years. It's not the be all end all number but yet another fun thing to play with.

I think about the preps thing, in the case of horses before, I figure they were trying to get more than 2 in and if they couldn't it was due to some soundness issue or something happened. Doing it on purpose is a whole new ball game, esp. if you have a trainer good with bringing horses off layoffs. That said, I think some trainers are a little cocky thinking it's just about physical readiness (on the other hand, folks like Carl Nafzger know darn well what they're doing with the horse's total package, it's about horsemanship). Sure the horse could get the mile and a quarter in good time left to his own devices but with 19 other horses, some serious dirt in his face in all likelihood and the various other things that go on, well it's mental seasoning too. A horse might seem more professional in a prep than in that field with that big a grandstand roar coming at them. Even if one of them shows some major class and overcomes the newness to win, it'll still be the exception rather than the rule. I don't think it indicates a trainer's found the secret to getting a horse with a good head on its shoulders. They might've just gotten lucky and any other horse would've been screwed.