Is it just me,

ArlJim78 · #1 07-12-2008, 04:43 PM

why doesn't anyone even consider for one moment that he is better suited for dirt?

eajinabi · #2 07-12-2008, 04:48 PM

I am not really a fan of Curlin so I really dont care

moke0043 · #3 07-12-2008, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

why doesn't anyone even consider for one moment that he is better suited for dirt?

Who knows? Was nice to see the switch to the turf, but bring him back to the dirt...

The Indomitable DrugS · #4 07-12-2008, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

why doesn't anyone even consider for one moment that he is better suited for dirt?

I think he obviously is.

Had the race been run differently - and the pace was slow - you could entertain the notion of an excuse for him. His Belmont Stakes loss featured him caught down inside behind a very slow pace in a race that featured a slow early, fast late, turf like fractions and time.

In this race - the pace in front of him was plenty fast and he was always in the clear. He's never going to be in any lighter than the 116lbs he carried. I certainly think it was a failed expierment...though he didn't exactly embarss himself or anything like that.

letswastemoney · #5 07-12-2008, 04:52 PM

There's no shame in losing to a former BC Turf winner

ArlJim78 · #6 07-12-2008, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I think he obviously is.

Had the race been run differently - and the pace was slow - you could entertain the notion of an excuse for him. His Belmont Stakes loss featured him caught down inside behind a very slow pace in a race that featured a slow early, fast late, turf like fractions and time.

In this race - the pace in front of him was plenty fast and he was always in the clear. He's never going to be in any lighter than the 116lbs he carried. I certainly think it was a failed expierment...though he didn't exactly embarss himself or anything like that.

exactly, not embarrassed, but the turf experiment is over. he would need to improve on that effort to even be competitive in the BC turf.

blackthroatedwind · #7 07-12-2008, 06:37 PM

Curlin is the perfect example for the naive people that think a good horse can do anything.

He's a very nice horse but nowhere near the horse on turf that he is on dirt.

the_fat_man · #8 07-12-2008, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Curlin is the perfect example for the naive people that think a good horse can do anything.

He's a very nice horse but nowhere near the horse on turf that he is on dirt.

This isn't as precise as we'd want. The 'naive' people didn't think that a good horse can do anything. They thought that Curlin could beat THIS field.

And, as you well know, NO HORSE can overcome a bad trip.

On the other hand, it's nice to have a 'dirt elitist' like yourself give well deserved credit to the specialists.

dalakhani · #9 07-12-2008, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

This isn't as precise as we'd want. The 'naive' people didn't think that a good horse can do anything. They thought that Curlin could beat THIS field.

And, as you well know, NO HORSE can overcome a bad trip.

A. Horses overcome bad trips all the time.

B. Why was this such bad trip for Curlin?

the_fat_man · #10 07-12-2008, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalakhani

A. Horses overcome bad trips all the time.

B. Why was this such bad trip for Curlin?

That's where you're wrong: horses ALMOST NEVER overcome bad trips (and I'm not referring to the [pseudo] bad trip of choice for the novice --- the checking suckup trip)

ArlJim78 · #11 07-12-2008, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

This isn't as precise as we'd want. The 'naive' people didn't think that a good horse can do anything. They thought that Curlin could beat THIS field.

And, as you well know, NO HORSE can overcome a bad trip.

thanks for this, its been some time since i laughed so hard.