Final Verdict ... Fog Is A Fraud

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I'm not double-talking at all. I still stick to my statement that you can't always rely on the grading of a race to decide how good the field is. A grade III race can sometimes play tougher than a grade I. If the only information you knew about a horse was that he once won a graded race, it wouldn't tell you a whole lot about how good he is. It could have been a weak graded race. If the only thing you knew about a horse was that he was a grade I winner, that wouldn't really tell you that much. It could have been a weak grade I. However, if you know that a horse has won six graded stakes races, that tells you something. One or two graded wins could be a fluke. A horse could have caught one or two weak fields. When a horse does it six times, it means something.
You guys think that the LITF supporters are making excuses for him. You think the excuses we are making to explain his bad performances are weak excuses. You guys are making way more excuses than we are. I'm making excuses for 3 sub-par races. You guys are making excuses for 11 wins, including 10 stakes races and 6 graded stakes races. When he ran a really fast time, it was only because the track was really fast. When he ran all of these huge speed figures, the figures must be wrong. When he won all of these graded stakes races at major tracks, every one of those races must have been weak. When he beat older horses, the older horses weren't that good. You guys have a million more excuses than I do. All I have to do is explain 3 sub-par races. You guys have to explain away an incredible record that includes 11 wins from 14 starts including 6 graded stakes wins.
How many other horses won 10 out of 11 races in a year including 5 graded races? If it's not that hard to do and a trainer simply needs to pick easy spots, then name me some mediocre horses that have done it.
It's not that the LITF supporters are desperate for a hero, it's that the LITF knockers are desperate to knock down a champ. That's the way message boards are. People knock Tiger Woods on message boards. They say, "Aha, he lost this week. You see, he's not that good. He's a choker." The nonsense you read on these board is comical.
All that being said, I don't think LITF is in the league of some of the great horses I've seen like Ghostzapper.

And i ask yet again- NAME ONE DECENT FIELD THAT THIS HORSE HAS BEATEN. Just One

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

And i ask yet again- NAME ONE DECENT FIELD THAT THIS HORSE HAS BEATEN. Just One

I will answer again. It's not who you beat, it's how you do it. Who did Afleet Alex beat?
The question is irrelevant. A horse does not need to beat a great field for me to figure out that he's a really good horse.

[Danzig]

the thread that wouldn't die.....can't believe the life span of this thing.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I will answer again. It's not who you beat, it's how you do it. Who did Afleet Alex beat?
The question is irrelevant. A horse does not need to beat a great field for me to figure out that he's a really good horse.

Rup..Class = the Company you keep. I guess two legs of the TC gets AA a little more credit. LITF did everything he was suppose to do in restricted company..it was when he stepped up that he lost his glitter. I don't knock the horse, just don't feel he is as good as many thought he was.

Ez

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I will answer again. It's not who you beat, it's how you do it. Who did Afleet Alex beat?
The question is irrelevant. A horse does not need to beat a great field for me to figure out that he's a really good horse.

so basically you are saying that competition and race set up have no impact on performance?

[Danzig]

litf gets a lot of attention, winners do that. so does funny cide (not a LOT of wins, but he did win the derby), azeri did as well. none of them were the absolute best. none of them will probably be written of 80 years from now, unlike MOW for instance who just had a new book come out about him.

however, how is any horse getting attention from fans and bettors a BAD THING?! who cares if a bunch of people bet a horse down that may not be GREAT... that helps other cappers get better odds on their picks. who cares if people go goo goo (btw, who cares who came up with that saying?) over a horse that isn't the second coming of dr fager?

i'd imagine that calder appreciated the fact that litf showed the other day, he no doubt helped sell tickets. any horse who captures the fans imagination is a good thing. it's too bad that some are all bent out of shape that these horses get so much support, despite not being THE BEST. of course that is an opinion anyway, who is the best. unless their name was colin or personal ensign, they all lose.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

litf gets a lot of attention, winners do that. so does funny cide (not a LOT of wins, but he did win the derby), azeri did as well. none of them were the absolute best. none of them will probably be written of 80 years from now, unlike MOW for instance who just had a new book come out about him.

however, how is any horse getting attention from fans and bettors a BAD THING?! who cares if a bunch of people bet a horse down that may not be GREAT... that helps other cappers get better odds on their picks. who cares if people go goo goo (btw, who cares who came up with that saying?) over a horse that isn't the second coming of dr fager?

i'd imagine that calder appreciated the fact that litf showed the other day, he no doubt helped sell tickets. any horse who captures the fans imagination is a good thing. it's too bad that some are all bent out of shape that these horses get so much support, despite not being THE BEST. of course that is an opinion anyway, who is the best. unless their name was colin or personal ensign, they all lose.

I agree with much of what you say but i doubt the general sports fans have even heard of LITF. He didnt bring any fans to the game.

I thought that this was a forum to discuss horses and their relative merits both good and bad. Saying that he is overrated is not a BAD thing. Discussing it and trying to make points to back your assertion isnt a BAD thing.

The only people on this thread getting bent out of shape are the ones that have no logical points to back their paper champion. The rest of us are just having fun watching it all go down. Enjoy.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

so basically you are saying that competition and race set up have no impact on performance?

No, I didn't say that. Sometimes it has an impact and sometimes it doesn't. For example, you may see a horse break his maiden first-time out by 4 lengths. In his next start, he runs in a stakes against some a much stronger field and he wins by 5 lengths. I've seen that happen many times. So in that example, the stronger competition did not have an effect on the horse's performances. He stepped up against stronger competition and he ran just as good if not better. So in that case, the competition had no impact on his performance.
Sometimes the opposite happens. Maybe a horse wins easily first-time out and goes wire to wire. Let's say he runs the half-mile in :45 2/5 and gets an easy lead and he wins easily. In his next start, he runs in a stakes race against much better horses where the half is run in :44 1/5. He's not as goos as these horses and he can't run early with them and he gets beat. In this case, the competition and the race set up had a huge impact on performance.
Plenty of horses win by 3 lengths first-time out. I think you need to have a good eye to determine which of these horses are stars and which ones are not. I don't think that simply looking at the fractions or the speed figures will give you this information. You need to have a good eye.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

No, I didn't say that. Sometimes it has an impact and sometimes it doesn't. For example, you may see a horse break his maiden first-time out by 4 lengths. In his next start, he runs in a stakes against some a much stronger field and he wins by 5 lengths. I've seen that happen many times. So in that example, the stronger competition did not have an effect on the horse's performances. He stepped up against stronger competition and he ran just as good if not better. So in that case, the competition had no impact on his performance.
Sometimes the opposite happens. Maybe a horse wins easily first-time out and goes wire to wire. Let's say he runs the half-mile in :45 2/5 and gets an easy lead and he wins easily. In his next start, he runs in a stakes race against much better horses where the half is run in :44 1/5. He's not as goos as these horses and he can't run early with them and he gets beat. In this case, the competition and the race set up had a huge impact on performance.
Plenty of horses win by 3 lengths first-time out. I think you need to have a good eye to determine which of these horses are stars and which ones are not. I don't think that simply looking at the fractions or the speed figures will give you this information. You need to have a good eye.

Very well stated.

Hopefully we will have more information when LITF runs again. And I of course hope he does as he is visually very impressive to me.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

No, I didn't say that. Sometimes it has an impact and sometimes it doesn't. For example, you may see a horse break his maiden first-time out by 4 lengths. In his next start, he runs in a stakes against some a much stronger field and he wins by 5 lengths. I've seen that happen many times. So in that example, the stronger competition did not have an effect on the horse's performances. He stepped up against stronger competition and he ran just as good if not better. So in that case, the competition had no impact on his performance.
Sometimes the opposite happens. Maybe a horse wins easily first-time out and goes wire to wire. Let's say he runs the half-mile in :45 2/5 and gets an easy lead and he wins easily. In his next start, he runs in a stakes race against much better horses where the half is run in :44 1/5. He's not as goos as these horses and he can't run early with them and he gets beat. In this case, the competition and the race set up had a huge impact on performance. Plenty of horses win by 3 lengths first-time out. I think you need to have a good eye to determine which of these horses are stars and which ones are not. I don't think that simply looking at the fractions or the speed figures will give you this information. You need to have a good eye.

And as demonstrated by arljim earlier in the thread, this is clearly the case with LITF. You have just made the case. Thank you.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

And as demonstrated by arljim earlier in the thread, this is clearly the case with LITF. You have just made the case. Thank you.

No, not at all. LITF has proven he can win from off the pace. In addition, LITF has set some blazing early fractions and still drew off and won easily. So he has shown that he can set blazing fast fractions and win and he has shown that he can sit off the pace of fast fractions and win.
I'm not saying your theory is positively wrong. His sub-par performances in his 3 losses could be due to tougher competition on those occasions. Or it may be a combination of tougher competition and the horse not firing to due to physical problems.
Or it may be due almost solely to physical problems.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

No, not at all. LITF has proven he can win from off the pace. In addition, LITF has set some blazing early fractions and still drew off and won easily. So he has shown that he can set blazing fast fractions and win and he has shown that he can sit off the pace of fast fractions and win.
I'm not saying your theory is positively wrong. His sub-par performances in his 3 losses could be due to tougher competition on those occasions. Or it may be a combination of tougher competition and the horse not firing to due to physical problems.
Or it may be due almost solely to physical problems.

If he had demonstrated at least once that he could compete at the top against open company, than the injury excuse would have much more validity in my mind. The fact is that he hasnt been able to compete at the top. Maybe he does it in the future...i would bet not.

LITF has rated- you are correct. But he rated against cheap speed that would fold. LITF has set blazing fractions- you are correct. But there was nothing of quality there to chase him down. In races where there have been credible frontrunners as well as credible closers, he has lost. Simple as that. That is fact.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

No, not at all. LITF has proven he can win from off the pace. In addition, LITF has set some blazing early fractions and still drew off and won easily. So he has shown that he can set blazing fast fractions and win and he has shown that he can sit off the pace of fast fractions and win.
I'm not saying your theory is positively wrong. His sub-par performances in his 3 losses could be due to tougher competition on those occasions. Or it may be a combination of tougher competition and the horse not firing to due to physical problems.
Or it may be due almost solely to physical problems.

There is simply no race that LITF has ran which would qualify under the description of winning from off the pace. Not one.

By blazing fractions I know you are again referring to the three horse race at Bay Meadows, the 43 and change half mile. First of all that race was essentially a walkover, a time trial for LITF. Neither of the other two horses was a factor at any point. It wasn't as if he dueled with a fast horse and drew off. it makes a world of difference to a sprinter if you can't get comfortable up front, have to run a little wide or between horses.
That race showcased his blazing speed but little more. According to the pace figures that I use, and that you don't buy into, LITF actually ran swifter half miles in the RivaRidge, the KingsBishop, and the BC sprint. Imo the KingsBishop was probably his best performance.