Pletcher ... Same Old Story

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You say, "You've got to show something on those days." He has to show something on those days, or else what? Or else the press will get on him? Or else people on this board will criticize him? Those are about the only ramifications I can think of. I doubt he will lose any owners. He really does not need to win any of these races right now. He will continue to make millions of dollars a year regardless and he will continue to be the leading trainer in the country.

I agree that he needs to win some of these races by the end of his career if he wants to go down in history as one of the all-time greats. As long as he wins one by the end of his career, he will be fine. I think time is on his side. All he has to do is win one in the next 30 years. In the meantime, the Pletcher Machine will continue to dominate, with or without a Derby win or a BC Classic win.

Pletcher! Pletcher! He's our man!! If he can't do it? No one can....err.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Pillow Pants

Pletcher! Pletcher! He's our man!! If he can't do it? No one can....err.

Just like Tiger Woods.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Just like Tiger Woods.

Except Tiger Woods wins majors. Pletcher can't train the boys. He's always been top notch with the ladies though.

I doubt he ever wins a derby. His operation is too set in its ways to produce a kentucky derby winner. All of that website nonsense and 200 horses is fine and dandy but it doesn't equal true greatness.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Pillow Pants

Except Tiger Woods wins majors. Pletcher can't train the boys. He's always been top notch with the ladies though.

I doubt he ever wins a derby. His operation is too set in its ways to produce a kentucky derby winner. All of that website nonsense and 200 horses is fine and dandy but it doesn't equal true greatness.

I think that Pletcher will win a Derby. But even if he doesn't, what Pletcher has done proves much more than winning a Kentucky Derby proves. Plenty of below average trainers have won Kentucky Derbies. Guys like Cam Gambilotti and David Cross have won Kentucky Derbies. What does it prove? It doesn't prove anything. They got lucky and happened to get one really good horse.

Charlie Whittingham finally won a Derby towards the end of his career with Ferdinand. What if the rail didn't open for Shoemaker and Ferdinand in that race? Then Whittingham would have never won a Derby. That wouldn't make him any less of a trainer.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think that Pletcher will win a Derby. But even if he doesn't, what Pletcher has done proves much more than winning a Kentucky Derby proves. Plenty of below average trainers have won Kentucky Derbies. Guys like Cam Gambilotti and David Cross have won Kentucky Derbies. What does it prove? It doesn't prove anything. They got lucky and happened to get one really good horse.

Charlie Whittingham finally won a Derby towards the end of his career with Ferdinand. What if the rail didn't open for Shoemaker and Ferdinand in that race? Then Whittingham would have never won a Derby. That wouldn't make him any less of a trainer.

That's ridiculous. What you're implying is that the derby is meaningless to a trainer's legacy. That's completely false. It is the most coveted race for any trainer and legacies are enhanced when a trainer wins the race. Whittingham's legacy would've suffered without the derby win.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Pillow Pants

That's ridiculous. What you're implying is that the derby is meaningless to a trainer's legacy. That's completely false. It is the most coveted race for any trainer and legacies are enhanced when a trainer wins the race. Whittingham's legacy would've suffered without the derby win.

I agree with you that the Derby is considered extremely important for a person's legacy. I was simply saying that I think too much emphasis is put on it. I was saying that my personal opinion of Whittingham would not be any less if he never won a Derby. The media and the fans may have thought less of him if he never won a Derby but I wouldn't have thought any less of him.

[LARHAGE]

I think it's also a little more telling than being said that the last couple of Derby winners have been homebreds, by operations that were breeding for the track rather than the shed, hence the individuals were being bred for ability, not a fancy pedigree page.
Charlie Whittingham is not at all like Todd Pletcher , in his day Charlie was more known for turf and older horses, he hardly ran any colts in the Triple Crown, he wasn't obsessed with that goal like Todd is.
I love the fact the homebred horses from small trainers are winning, who would really like to see the Derby dominated by conglomerate operations fueled by multi-million dollar sale yearlings being trained by a handful of the same old trainer every year? I sure wouldn't!

[Rupert Pupkin]

By the way, I don't think there is anything that Pletcher could have done in 2006 or 2007 to win the Derby. I don't think he had a horse in 2006 that could have beaten Barbaro. I don't think he had a horse in 2007 that could have beaten Street Sense.

If Pletcher would have had a horse ready to run big on Derby day in 2005, he might have been able to win. It's not as if Giacomo was unbeatable. If Pletcher could have gotten Flower Alley to peak on Derby day, I don't see any reason why he couldn't have beaten Giacomo. I'm not saying that Pletcher did anything wrong in 2005. I'm simply saying that you could at least make an argument that 2005 was a year that Pletcher could have won the race if one of his horses ran big that day. But in 2006 and 2007, Pletcher did not have a horse that could have beaten Barbaro or Street Sense.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

By the way, I don't think there is anything that Pletcher could have done in 2006 or 2007 to win the Derby. I don't think he had a horse in 2006 that could have beaten Barbaro. I don't think he had a horse in 2007 that could have beaten Street Sense.

If Pletcher would have had a horse ready to run big on Derby day in 2005, he might have been able to win. It's not as if Giacomo was unbeatable. If Pletcher could have gotten Flower Alley to peak on Derby day, I don't see any reason why he couldn't have beaten Giacomo. I'm not saying that Pletcher did anything wrong in 2005. I'm simply saying that you could at least make an argument that 2005 was a year that Pletcher could have won the race if one of his horses ran big that day. But in 2006 and 2007, Pletcher did not have a horse that could have beaten Barbaro or Street Sense.

While you may be correct about this year, I believe that he had to have had at least ONE horse out of the 5 that could have at least hit the board. Street Sense was the best horse in the Derby, but he's also a horse for the course with CD. TP had to be disappointed knowing that he didn't even hit the board with one of his 5 starters.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

By the way, I don't think there is anything that Pletcher could have done in 2006 or 2007 to win the Derby. I don't think he had a horse in 2006 that could have beaten Barbaro. I don't think he had a horse in 2007 that could have beaten Street Sense.

If Pletcher would have had a horse ready to run big on Derby day in 2005, he might have been able to win. It's not as if Giacomo was unbeatable. If Pletcher could have gotten Flower Alley to peak on Derby day, I don't see any reason why he couldn't have beaten Giacomo. I'm not saying that Pletcher did anything wrong in 2005. I'm simply saying that you could at least make an argument that 2005 was a year that Pletcher could have won the race if one of his horses ran big that day. But in 2006 and 2007, Pletcher did not have a horse that could have beaten Barbaro or Street Sense.

No one's saying he should've beaten Street Sense.. But with five horses, you probably should run better than sixth..

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

No one's saying he should've beaten Street Sense.. But with five horses, you probably should run better than sixth..

I agree with you there. His horses certainly did not perform well. But even if one of his horses did hit the board, I think you guys would still be giving him just as hard of a time.

The main criticism I have been hearing here is that he didn't win. I don't think that criticism is fair because I don't think he could have won. If you want to criticize him for not having a single horse run well, then that is a fair criticism.

[Bigsmc]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Charlie Whittingham finally won a Derby towards the end of his career with Ferdinand. What if the rail didn't open for Shoemaker and Ferdinand in that race? Then Whittingham would have never won a Derby. That wouldn't make him any less of a trainer.

I don't know the numbers off hand, but how many Derby starters did Whittingham have? What is his win percentage in the Derby vs. Pletcher?

My memory is not good, but The Bald Eagle did not ship East unless he knew he had a big shot.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Charlie Whittingham finally won a Derby towards the end of his career with Ferdinand. What if the rail didn't open for Shoemaker and Ferdinand in that race? Then Whittingham would have never won a Derby. That wouldn't make him any less of a trainer.

Sunday Silence doesn't count?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Sunday Silence doesn't count?

That's right. I forgot. He's won it twice.

[NTamm1215]

If you take a look at all of Pletcher's Derby horses, they all seem to have run the best races of their lives 2nd off the layoff. Maybe that's Todd's key- one prep then the Derby.

Wouldn't that be great for racing?

NT