Triple Crown?

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

You really need to take a step back and think about the content of my post, as it seems I struck a nerve.

The horse might've been the chalk and alot of EXPERTS went as far as saying he had the most ability BUT they stopped short of a full endorsement because of the points mentioned. I'm just tired of hearing these same old tired cliches used when someone doesn't have an opinion. Either you like a horse or you don't. Either you like the odds or you don't. Either you have an opinion or you don't. If you can't analyze the race, sit down. Oh, and the other cliche I forgot to mention: this year's race is not exciting because the horses aren't fast enough. WTF does that mean? 150,000 showed up.

But, for EXPERTS to come out strongly for Colonel John, or Visionaire, or Tale of Ekati, is a ****in joke.
Get my drift?

If you just mean that people should handicap the race instead of using peculiar and useless "Derby angles," I agree with you.
However, I don't think picking somebody like Colonel John to win this race qualified as a "****ing joke."

I guess I am just confused by why you come on here with a big "I-told-everybody-so" type of post after a big favorite wins a race. You did the same thing after the Florida Derby. I have no problem with people being excited when they pick a winner. They should be.
But the "all the experts are crazy and need to change their ways" attitude just seems a little misplaced and rather strange in this particular situation.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by miraja2

If you just mean that people should handicap the race instead of using peculiar and useless "Derby angles," I agree with you.
However, I don't think picking somebody like Colonel John to win this race qualified as a "****ing joke."

I guess I am just confused by why you come on here with a big "I-told-everybody-so" type of post after a big favorite wins a race. You did the same thing after the Florida Derby. I have no problem with people being excited when they pick a winner. They should be.
But the "all the experts are crazy and need to change their ways" attitude just seems a little misplaced and rather strange in this particular situation.

1) Let's get the facts straight. I didn't come on with an "I-told...." type of post. I'm just pushing for more exact analysis. The races are more interesting than having some expert offer that a horse needs more seasoning because that's the way it's normally done. DUH, if you're a recognized figure in the game, you're supposed to be able to step BEYOND the banal and pick out the standouts that aren't subject to normal methods. THAT's my point.

2) I never offered an opinion on the race, except for a tongue-in-cheek post criticizing that exact same thing happening last year with Curlin.

3) It's not about the odds of the horse, as those making the post 12 cliche argument (and those similar to it) can always revert to the low odds as being some kind of victory. Which equates to saying, 'yeah, I'm banking on banal statistics to make a case, cause I lack the ability to gauge the performance level of a given horse. However, should that horse win at low odds, all bets are off." What exactly does that mean?

I'm sorry but I expect a higher level of analysis here.