John V. & Flower Alley

[Phalaris1913]

I just find it mildly amusing that a certain 'clique' always jumps on here after a favorite in a big race goes down and calls him a fraud, overrated, etc. If Invasor goes down next time out the same people who are praising him today will call him overrated. Take what they say (and you know who they are) with a grain of salt...

Speaking for myself - presuming that I may be included among said "clique" because of my tendency to judge on a harsh curve - some of this comes about as a natural response to premature hyperbole.

Some people apparently are only happy when they feel that they are in the presence of greatness. I watched today's Whitney and thought, "Hmm, decent effort by the winner. Looks like Flower Alley wasn't ready for a race like this off one race in nine months." I don't have to believe that I witnessed greatness; I'm happy with appreciating a good finish by a horse who's won three straight at three different tracks over three different distances. If Invasor goes out the next time and doesn't run a step, that doesn't change my impression of this race, and of Invasor's merits, today. But if I go out and proclaim to one and all that Invasor is the best horse ever, and he'll never lose again, etc., etc., not only am I going to irk people who aren't sold on Invasor being the best horse since ______, I'm going to look pretty foolish if he runs like a rat next time.

Of course, no one wants to look foolish. But for whatever reason, a lot of people seem to want to be the first kid on the block to recognize the next great horse. Since very few of these actually turn out to be great, there's a whole lot of irritating premature hyperbole, a whole lot of Hindenburgs, and a whole lot of backlash every time one goes down to a bad defeat.

Not that a defeat, even an ugly one like Flower Alley's run in the Whitney today, should be end all-be all evidence of fraud. But that's a side effect of the times. With horses running as infrequently as they do now, I suppose newer racing fans have necessarily come up in the sport with the idea that greatness is demonstrated by an instance rather than a pattern. The natural extension of proclaiming greatness off a singular episode of perceived brilliance is that greatness crumbles off a singular debacle. Horses, at least perceived superhorses, are not allowed to have an off day anymore.

That hasn't always been the case. For example, nobody remembers Kelso as a fraud because he stunk in the 1962 Met Mile; the weight of his accomplishments override the fact that once in a while, he - like most superhorses from the mythic age of heroes - had bad days. But when you have 10 lifetime starts and your reputation rides on one or two big wins, all of a sudden a stinker matters.

So, strictly from the FWIW department, that's my view on the matter.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by 1st_Saturday_in_May

I just find it mildly amusing that a certain 'clique' always jumps on here after a favorite in a big race goes down and calls him a fraud, overrated, etc. If Invasor goes down next time out the same people who are praising him today will call him overrated. Take what they say (and you know who they are) with a grain of salt...

I am certainly not a part of that 'clique' and I don't think I ever started a thread like that, but I will warn you that if Bernardini loses this year I will be on here in about 2 seconds questioning how the horse that people already awarded HOY and the best horse in 25 years could possibly have lost.

As for Flower Alley being overhyped on this board, I don't think he was. I have come on this board and PREDICTED that FA would win HOY, and I know some other people have too. There is nothing wrong with making predictions, even when it turns out that we were probably wrong. Some big Bernardini fans however are not making predictions but declarations like "This horse can't lose." To me there is a difference. People that make declarations like that deserve to eat a little crow, if they are wrong.