Curlin

[Scurlogue Champ]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

the only one people want to talk about it would seem.

They tend to talk more about the cheaters that win 500 races in a year I guess.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

We agree to an extent. We both feel like a horse should be able to handle a testing spring and still be around for the summer and fall. But are we living in a fantasy world? How many of them actually DO this? There can be many reasons, some physical, some economic, for why horses aren't campaigned the same way anymore. But let's just look at simple facts. The FACTS say that, since this decade began:

2000-Fusaichi Pegasus, Red Bullet, Commendable
2001-Monarchos, Point Given
2002-War Emblem, Sarava
2003-Funny Cide, Empire Maker
2004-Smarty Jones, Birdstone
2005-Giacomo, Afleet Alex
2006-Barbaro, Bernardini, Jazil

That's 16 horses that have won a TC race. Out of those 16, the majority DID NOT finish their 3yo season. It's not something I'm making up.

Fusaichi Pegasus (Jerome-II)
Point Given (Haskell-I, Travers-I)
War Emblem (Haskell-I)
Birdstone (Travers-I)
Bernardini (Jim Dandy-II, Travers-I, JCGC-I)

Yes but they did win those TC races! That is pretty important. Are you suggesting that Point Given or Afleet Alex would have had better overall careers if they had skipped the remainder of the TC races after not winning their respective Kentucky Derbies? Both of those colts came back to win the Preakness and the Belmont which were the biggest wins of their career.
Also, in the case of horses like Empire Maker, Jazil and Red Bullet, as I see it the fact that they didn't go on to win a graded stakes race in the fall actually makes MY point more than it makes yours. Those horses were not pressed into Derby-Preakness doubles. Red Bullet only ran in one TC race, and Empire Maker & Jazil skipped the Preakness like you want them to do with Curlin. They both won the Belmont, but skipping the Preakness did not ensure a successful fall campaign for Empire Maker or Jazil, so why would it do that for Curlin?
If they feel like their horse is healthy and ready now.....I just think they should run him now. The Preakness is an important race, and choosing not to run him doesn't ensure any sort of success in races like the Jim Dandy or Travers anyway.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

That's only five of the 16 that have gone on to win a graded stakes race after the TC.

That is true if you just limit it to their 3yo campaigns.
Both Funny Cide and Giacomo won graded stakes at age 4.

[Danzig]

lenght of a horses career also depends on commercial appeal to breeders, and the breeding market itself. some months ago i showed after a bit of searching that when horses ran at four (such as real quiet, silver charm) the market was down...but when breeding is up, like it has been (altho i think it's in a downward trend) you have smarty jones, point given, afleet alex, fupeg, etc.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by miraja2

Yes but they did win those TC races! That is pretty important. Are you suggesting that Point Given or Afleet Alex would have had better overall careers if they had skipped the remainder of the TC races after not winning their respective Kentucky Derbies? Both of those colts came back to win the Preakness and the Belmont which were the biggest wins of their career.
Also, in the case of horses like Empire Maker, Jazil and Red Bullet, as I see it the fact that they didn't go on to win a graded stakes race in the fall actually makes MY point more than it makes yours. Those horses were not pressed into Derby-Preakness doubles. Red Bullet only ran in one TC race, and Empire Maker & Jazil skipped the Preakness like you want them to do with Curlin. They both won the Belmont, but skipping the Preakness did not ensure a successful fall campaign for Empire Maker or Jazil, so why would it do that for Curlin?
If they feel like their horse is healthy and ready now.....I just think they should run him now. The Preakness is an important race, and choosing not to run him doesn't ensure any sort of success in races like the Jim Dandy or Travers anyway.

I don't mean to single out the Preakness. I'd be even more opposed to running in the Belmont than the Preakness. Of Empire Maker, Jazil and Red Bullet, the first two did run in another TC race after losing the Derby, which is what I'm saying doesn't need to be done.

I'm not saying that either Point Given or Alex would have better careers or longer careers had they skipped the later TC races. Whether running in those races had anything to do with their future fate is something that can never be known. But as it stands, they are part of a long list of those that, for whatever reasons, haven't had the greatest of luck when it comes to going on.

The one point in which I'll agree with u is when u say that skipping them doesn't ensure future success. There used to be a time when I strongly advocated striking while the iron was hot. In fact, I still have that same opinion of the BC Juvenile. It really bothers me when trainers skip it with the reasoning being that they don't want to do too much because they want to have a horse ready for the Derby. Today is just a different game played by different rules though. Following recent trends, we are more likely to see Curlin done before September if he runs in the Preakness (especially if he wins it) than we are if he doesn't.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Jim Rome says "if u aren't cheating, u aren't trying.......and it's only cheating if u get caught."

Sounds like NASCAR.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I don't mean to single out the Preakness. I'd be even more opposed to running in the Belmont than the Preakness. Of Empire Maker, Jazil and Red Bullet, the first two did run in another TC race after losing the Derby, which is what I'm saying doesn't need to be done.

I'm not saying that either Point Given or Alex would have better careers or longer careers had they skipped the later TC races. Whether running in those races had anything to do with their future fate is something that can never be known. But as it stands, they are part of a long list of those that, for whatever reasons, haven't had the greatest of luck when it comes to going on.

The one point in which I'll agree with u is when u say that skipping them doesn't ensure future success. There used to be a time when I strongly advocated striking while the iron was hot. In fact, I still have that same opinion of the BC Juvenile. It really bothers me when trainers skip it with the reasoning being that they don't want to do too much because they want to have a horse ready for the Derby. Today is just a different game played by different rules though. Following recent trends, we are more likely to see Curlin done before September if he runs in the Preakness (especially if he wins it) than we are if he doesn't.

I guess it just seems to me like you are underestimating the value of winning a TC race. These three races are - along with the BC - the biggest races in the sport in this country. If the connections of their horse feel the horse is healthy and has a shot.....why not take it?
I guess what I am saying is that I don't think competing in the TC races ruined the career of horses like Point Given, Afleet Alex, Empire Maker, and Jazil......but if I am wrong and it did ruin the rest of their career......it was still worth it.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by miraja2

I guess it just seems to me like you are underestimating the value of winning a TC race. These three races are - along with the BC - the biggest races in the sport.
I guess what I am saying is that I don't think competing in the TC races ruined the career of horses like Point Given, Afleet Alex, Empire Maker, and Jazil......but if I am wrong and it did ruin the rest of their career......it was still worth it.

i don't think running in the tc races ruined point givens career, i think winning the preakness belmont dandy and travers ruined his career. winning the belmont and being by unbridled ruined empire makers career--altho running on that foot in the derby could have ruined the horse.

[JDank34]

Originally Posted by miraja2

I guess it just seems to me like you are underestimating the value of winning a TC race. These three races are - along with the BC - the biggest races in the sport. If the connections of their horse feel the horse is healthy and has a shot.....why not take it?
I guess what I am saying is that I don't think competing in the TC races ruined the career of horses like Point Given, Afleet Alex, Empire Maker, and Jazil......but if I am wrong and it did ruin the rest of their career......it was still worth it.

totally disagree. the Kentucky Derby is the biggest race for a 3 year old. I fyou are talking about making a stallion out of Curlin the Preakness is WAY down the list. KY Derby, BC, Met Mile and Travers are tops by far. Just the same for the fillies. Ask any breeder with a quality broodmare band and a quality racing age filly and see if he/she wants to win the KY Oaks or The Alabama...I am sure The Alabama is the answer. Just because the TC races recieve the TV exposure does not mean they make a stallion for commercial breeding, and are therefore The Preakness is not anywhere near one of the most important races for the ownership of Curlin.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by JDank34

totally disagree. the Kentucky Derby is the biggest race for a 3 year old. I fyou are talking about making a stallion out of Curlin the Preakness is WAY down the list. KY Derby, BC, Met Mile and Travers are tops by far. Just the same for the fillies. Ask any breeder with a quality broodmare band and a quality racing age filly and see if he/she wants to win the KY Oaks or The Alabama...I am sure The Alabama is the answer. Just because the TC races recieve the TV exposure does not mean they make a stallion for commercial breeding, and are therefore The Preakness is not anywhere near one of the most important races for the ownership of Curlin.

I'll take your word on that. I am certainly not an expert on the breeding side of the game. But if you asked most trainers, jockeys, owners, etc. if they would rather win a TC race or the Met Mile.....don't you think most of them would take the TC race? Maybe I am wrong, but I assume they would.
And again I come back to the point that if skipping the Preakness somehow ensured that Curlin would compete in - and win - a race like the Travers it might be a different story. But it doesn't ensure that at all. The Preakness vs. The Travers is not an either/or proposition. A horse could run in and win both.....or run in and win neither.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by JDank34

totally disagree. the Kentucky Derby is the biggest race for a 3 year old. I fyou are talking about making a stallion out of Curlin the Preakness is WAY down the list. KY Derby, BC, Met Mile and Travers are tops by far. Just the same for the fillies. Ask any breeder with a quality broodmare band and a quality racing age filly and see if he/she wants to win the KY Oaks or The Alabama...I am sure The Alabama is the answer. Just because the TC races recieve the TV exposure does not mean they make a stallion for commercial breeding, and are therefore The Preakness is not anywhere near one of the most important races for the ownership of Curlin.

two words for you and this argument.

afleet alex

[JDank34]

Originally Posted by Danzig

two words for you and this argument.

afleet alex

Danzig..I'm not sure what you mean?

[Danzig]

that alex got a lot of attention for his preakness effort, after a third in the derby....the icing on the cake was his belmont, and then off to stud. altho the derby is the big one, the other two are meaningful--IF the breeding is there as well. look at the derby winner from alex' year, giacomo. he got the roses, but not much attention from breeders. you have to have more than just the win, but the win for the right horse is a deal maker as well.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Alex was highly regarded well before his Preakness win. He was a grade 1 winner at 2 and a multiple stakes winner going long and short. He was going to be a hot commidity regardless of his Preakness win.

my point tho is that the preakness is not a 'nothing' race, nor is the derby a guarantee of attention from breeders. altho alex would no doubt have gotten interest, that interest only soared with his two classic wins.

[JDank34]

Originally Posted by Danzig

my point tho is that the preakness is not a 'nothing' race, nor is the derby a guarantee of attention from breeders. altho alex would no doubt have gotten interest, that interest only soared with his two classic wins.

who ever said The Preakness was a nothing race? My point was that there are MANY more G 1 races that are more desirable from a breeding standpoint. And while I am no Giacomo fan, your arguement about value is odd becaue they are very different in terms of pedigree, conformation, etc...

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by JDank34

who ever said The Preakness was a nothing race? My point was that there are MANY more G 1 races that are more desirable from a breeding standpoint. And while I am no Giacomo fan, your arguement about value is odd becaue they are very different in terms of pedigree, conformation, etc...

the horse who wins a grade one has to also be commercially viable, has to have the draw.
that's why i brought up giacomo. altho he won the top gr 1 for three year old colts, there was no hype about him from breeders, no phones ringing off the hook for him, because the interest wasn't there.
afleet alex was the opposite, precocious at two, winner of two of three classics at three. demand was high, just like it was for smarty, but not as much for birdstone.
then you have empire maker, who won the belmont-started at 100k.

it's a combination of the race(s) won and commercial appeal. if you have one without the other, good luck getting a big syndication deal.

as for the travers, hard to say that it means more--the top horses haven't been making it there lately. ten most wanted is already gone to new york, didn't do well enough to stay in kentucky.