Weekend Beyers (Genl Qrtrs 95; Papa Clem 101)

[The Indomitable DrugS]

I think I Want Revenge is a total bum on synthetic tracks.

His dream trip 3rd in the Bob Lewis was a gruesomely bad performance.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I think I Want Revenge is a total bum on synthetic tracks.

His dream trip 3rd in the Bob Lewis was a gruesomely bad performance.

lol
not what i'm saying at all. but all those cali horses only have that surface to run on-i wonder how many would shine if put elsewhere? or would do poorly for that matter.
potn could turn out to be great on dirt, and turn out to be the best three year old. but i just don't see that one of his competitors form on dirt tells you a thing about what POTN would do on the same surface.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Danzig

lol
not what i'm saying at all. but all those cali horses only have that surface to run on-i wonder how many would shine if put elsewhere? or would do poorly for that matter.
potn could turn out to be great on dirt, and turn out to be the best three year old. but i just don't see that one of his competitors form on dirt tells you a thing about what POTN would do on the same surface.

Ok so if Spectacular Bid beat Seattle Slew and Affirmed on dirt then Seattle Slew and Affirmed went on to win grass races, you wouldn't give Bid a longer look in his grass debut?

Nobody is saying it's any kind of certainty that Pioneer will handle the dirt. I have no clue whatsoever. Let me ask you how big of a part does class handicapping play when you are looking at a race? For example, let's say Rail Trip went out and beat Commentator in the Met Mile in his next race then they decide to put him on grass for his next start. I don't know how Rail Trip will handle the grass but I do know that he's a good horse to beat Commentator. Perhaps Papa Clem and IWR both suck on synthetics and are 8-10 lengths better on dirt. Entirely possible. Same could be true of Pioneer. I'm just saying that while the synthetics can mute the form of some horses and raise the form of others, it's USUALLY not going to make bad horses beat good horses. I just think that it's not a negative that he beat them and it's not meaningless. It can only be a plus. How big of one is what's to be determined.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Ok so if Spectacular Bid beat Seattle Slew and Affirmed on dirt then Seattle Slew and Affirmed went on to win grass races, you wouldn't give Bid a longer look in his grass debut?

Nobody is saying it's any kind of certainty that Pioneer will handle the dirt. I have no clue whatsoever. Let me ask you how big of a part does class handicapping play when you are looking at a race? For example, let's say Rail Trip went out and beat Commentator in the Met Mile in his next race then they decide to put him on grass for his next start. I don't know how Rail Trip will handle the grass but I do know that he's a good horse to beat Commentator. Perhaps Papa Clem and IWR both suck on synthetics and are 8-10 lengths better on dirt. Entirely possible. Same could be true of Pioneer. I'm just saying that while the synthetics can mute the form of some horses and raise the form of others, it's USUALLY not going to make bad horses beat good horses. I just think that it's not a negative that he beat them and it's not meaningless. It can only be a plus. How big of one is what's to be determined.

no

i think my biggest problem about synthetics is most of those cali horses won't ever get a shot to run on anything else. maybe none of them really like it-but someone has to win, finish second, etc.

take the big cap-einstein was the class of the field, but since he had prior turf form, i thought he would be able to handle the surface and the competition-which turned out to be the case.

then you have a horse like sulamani-seemingly the class of the field. but the distance wasn't his best, and he didn't care for firm turf. he ran third in the arlington million, but moved up when stevens' horse veered out af the finish. but all of those factors combined were too much for the horse to overcome.

we've all seen a good horse who detested a surface overcome everything and manage to win. but i think far more often, you have a horse with proven ability on one surface who just can't get it done on another. curlin proved able only to win on dirt. he hit the board in his attempts on other surfaces-a testament to his ability i'm sure. but i think wagering wise, i'd take a horse proven vs competition and proven to be good on a surface over one who has never run on-especially if it's the derby.

also, keep in mind that every horse dapples out, works well and looks great-best shape ever! when leading up to the derby.

pioneer may end up doing just fine at churchill-but i'll take a horse that doesn't have more questions than answers.

[randallscott35]

I agree with Steve on POTN. Just b/c other Cal horses have done well on the real thing doesn't mean anything about how he will do on it...I will be playing against POTN more as a hunch than anything else.

[Hoist Her Flag]

And I will play against Quality Road because of the "surface" he ran on.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Hoist Her Flag

And I will play against Quality Road because of the "surface" he ran on.

care to expand on your own opinion with facts or just follow blindly behind what one ranting, disappointed trainer had to say in the heat of the moment?

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Ok so if Spectacular Bid beat Seattle Slew and Affirmed on dirt then Seattle Slew and Affirmed went on to win grass races, you wouldn't give Bid a longer look in his grass debut?

Nobody is saying it's any kind of certainty that Pioneer will handle the dirt. I have no clue whatsoever. Let me ask you how big of a part does class handicapping play when you are looking at a race? For example, let's say Rail Trip went out and beat Commentator in the Met Mile in his next race then they decide to put him on grass for his next start. I don't know how Rail Trip will handle the grass but I do know that he's a good horse to beat Commentator. Perhaps Papa Clem and IWR both suck on synthetics and are 8-10 lengths better on dirt. Entirely possible. Same could be true of Pioneer. I'm just saying that while the synthetics can mute the form of some horses and raise the form of others, it's USUALLY not going to make bad horses beat good horses. I just think that it's not a negative that he beat them and it's not meaningless. It can only be a plus. How big of one is what's to be determined.

Just look at Curlin... was a monster on dirt and not the same on grass or synthetics.

that basically proves was Kasept and Ziggy are saying.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Just look at Curlin... was a monster on dirt and not the same on grass or synthetics.

that basically proves was Kasept and Ziggy are saying.

This is silly though. You can't take one horse and say that's proves anything. I could just as easily say "just look at Zenyatta, who was a monster on both" or Midnite Lute or Tiago or Indian Blessing. All of them were good enough to win graded stakes on synthetics and on real dirt. All of them appear to be better on dirt. Why is it automatic that Pioneer can't be is all I ask? I also don't think it's fair to say that Curlin was a monster on dirt. Those last few races were FAAAAR from monster efforts and his losses on grass and synthetics weren't exactly to claiming horses.

Saying one horse proves something........I might as well say that all horses trained by Servis can win the Derby because Smarty Jones proved that.

[Diver67]

I'm hoping Pioneer is the real deal as he is my hometown horse but I do acknowledge the concerns over the surface switch and his "slow" Beyers. But it is almost comical how all the experts declare that IWR and PC are "obviously" better on dirt--and that Take the Points (also beaten by Pioneer) is "obviously" worse on synthetics. I could understand being cautious about Pioneer until he runs on dirt, but I don't understand the wide disregard for him given the horses he's beaten.

And don't get me started on some of the love-fests for Chocolate Candy, who will also "obviously" move up on dirt.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Papa Clem is about as good on dirt as he is on synthetic tracks. Even though his sire Smart Strike is also the sire of confirmed synthetic track haters Curlin and Fabulous Strike ... and both Papa Clem's dam and 2nd were Grade 1 winners on real dirt.

Take the Points is also as "good" on synthetic as he is on dirt.

I Want Revenge is light years better on dirt than synthetic. I would load up on Take the Points against IWR on a syn track.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

This is silly though. You can't take one horse and say that's proves anything. I could just as easily say "just look at Zenyatta, who was a monster on both" or Midnite Lute or Tiago or Indian Blessing. All of them were good enough to win graded stakes on synthetics and on real dirt. All of them appear to be better on dirt. Why is it automatic that Pioneer can't be is all I ask? I also don't think it's fair to say that Curlin was a monster on dirt. Those last few races were FAAAAR from monster efforts and his losses on grass and synthetics weren't exactly to claiming horses.

Saying one horse proves something........I might as well say that all horses trained by Servis can win the Derby because Smarty Jones proved that.

you are being silly. I said "and that proves was Kasept and Ziggy were saying"

Which was... you dont know whats going to happen.

And the Curlin example does prove that.

I never said or implied that the Curlin example means all horses who run well on dirt will suck on synthetics.. or vise versa.

Nobody knows what POTN is going to do on dirt. He could love it, like it, or hate it. But you cant say just because IWR and Papa Clem like the dirt that means POTN will...

that is what my post was about.


Edit: So basically.. the people who bet on POTN in the Derby will have no idea how this horse will take to the surface (like DrugS said, water is wet). Its a bigger gamble than betting on horses who already have established their dirt form. But than again betting is a risk vs reward situation... and POTN odds may be to low to be worth the risk.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

This is silly though. You can't take one horse and say that's proves anything. I could just as easily say "just look at Zenyatta, who was a monster on both" or Midnite Lute or Tiago or Indian Blessing. All of them were good enough to win graded stakes on synthetics and on real dirt. All of them appear to be better on dirt. Why is it automatic that Pioneer can't be is all I ask? I also don't think it's fair to say that Curlin was a monster on dirt. Those last few races were FAAAAR from monster efforts and his losses on grass and synthetics weren't exactly to claiming horses.

Saying one horse proves something........I might as well say that all horses trained by Servis can win the Derby because Smarty Jones proved that.

i never said it was automatic. i said that people making the claim that IWR and papa having dirt form somehow flatters POTN is incorrect. it tells us nothing about how pioneer will handle dirt. i said i wouldn't use him, because i think all things being equal or relatively so class-wise, that i would use a horse with proven dirt ability over one who has no proof. that i wouldn't use a horse having to do too many 'firsts' in a race like the derby.


when you consider the thousands of horses who race on poly vs how many try dirt, and how many make it on dirt, i think you'd find that horses like zenyatta are an anomaly. she is a good horse-moreso because she has handled more than one surface. but not all good horses on one surface are good on all surfaces, just because some are.