Rachel Alexandra to Woodward

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by CSC

I'm really talking about both points, I don't understand how you can say Rachel in the Travers is not more interesting or a better race. Okay we will have to agree to disagree.

It would be a better race with Rachel in it, that is absolutely true. What I said is that I don't think the luster is lost on the Travers just cause of Rachel skipping it. Even without her it is a better Travers than we have seen in several years. And I think the combined quality of the Travers and Woodward now is better than the combined quality of the Travers and Woodward had Rachel gone in the Travers. Now there are two compelling, must see races instead of one.

[Gander]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

It would be a better race with Rachel in it, that is absolutely true. What I said is that I don't think the luster is lost on the Travers just cause of Rachel skipping it. Even without her it is a better Travers than we have seen in several years. And I think the combined quality of the Travers and Woodward now is better than the combined quality of the Travers and Woodward had Rachel gone in the Travers. Now there are two compelling, must see races instead of one.

Good post. I agree, the way it fell these 2 races will be better with Rachel running in the Wood. The Travers was alreay really good w/o her. The Wood needs her.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

It would be a better race with Rachel in it, that is absolutely true. What I said is that I don't think the luster is lost on the Travers just cause of Rachel skipping it. Even without her it is a better Travers than we have seen in several years. And I think the combined quality of the Travers and Woodward now is better than the combined quality of the Travers and Woodward had Rachel gone in the Travers. Now there are two compelling, must see races instead of one.

I can understand what you are saying now, the way I see it is last year's Travers's field is pretty much the same field we have this year minus RA. The race really needed Big Brown to elevate it to an A race level for some, but without him in it, it is the same as not having RA in this year's race.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by CSC

I can understand what you are saying now, the way I see it is last year's Travers's field is pretty much the same field we have this year minus RA. The race really needed Big Brown to elevate it to an A race level for some, but without him in it, it is the same as not having RA in this year's race.

Tale of Slowkati had a career high Beyer of 95 going into the race, had a 93 in his last race which was his highest as a 3yo.

Court Vision had a career high Beyer on the dirt of 90.

Cool Coal Man had a career high Beyer of 98.

You can look at what those horses did later and try and say it was a good field but at that time those horses had done nothing and all have still done nothing at 10 furlongs on the dirt.

When I get the PPs for the entries for this year's Travers I'll do a comparison but I am guessing top to bottom this year will win every matchup.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Tale of Slowkati had a career high Beyer of 95 going into the race, had a 93 in his last race which was his highest as a 3yo.

Court Vision had a career high Beyer on the dirt of 90.

Cool Coal Man had a career high Beyer of 98.

You can look at what those horses did later and try and say it was a good field but at that time those horses had done nothing and all have still done nothing at 10 furlongs on the dirt.

When I get the PPs for the entries for this year's Travers I'll do a comparison but I am guessing top to bottom this year will win every matchup.

I can't argue numbers or beyers, however why should they be the sole determining factor of quality unless it's a dirt low number. I would prefer a balanced approach of common sense, the analysing of races, race dynamics, the competition and the numbers to reach a fair conclusion.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by CSC

I can understand what you are saying now, the way I see it is last year's Travers's field is pretty much the same field we have this year minus RA. The race really needed Big Brown to elevate it to an A race level for some, but without him in it, it is the same as not having RA in this year's race.

Big Brown couldn't have gotten to within 5 lengths of Rachel, juiced too booth.

[Linny]

Originally Posted by CSC

I can understand what you are saying now, the way I see it is last year's Travers's field is pretty much the same field we have this year minus RA. The race really needed Big Brown to elevate it to an A race level for some, but without him in it, it is the same as not having RA in this year's race.

The problem with last year's Travers was last years crop. Other than BB, they just stunk. Yes TOE was the Cigar Mile and Harlem Rocker was a nice colt, beating Bribon (even at a mile) doesn't make you a world beater. The Cigar Mile was like the Travers, a solid evenly matched bunch but not strong, relative to other runnings.
Yes Cool Coal Man is coming to hand well right now (like his sire, a nice 4yo) and Macho Again, when he wants to be and when the situation is right, is a nice horse but as Sightseek pointed out, those two won major races because someone had too.
Comparing renewals of a given race I like to look at what I'd do if all of last years pp's were intesgrated into this years pp's for the same race. For obvious reasons its impossible but comparing such things is always speculative. Is there any horse who's pp's from last years Travers make you think he'd beat the major contenders in this year's running?

[CSC]

Originally Posted by Linny

The problem with last year's Travers was last years crop. Other than BB, they just stunk. Yes TOE was the Cigar Mile and Harlem Rocker was a nice colt, beating Bribon (even at a mile) doesn't make you a world beater. The Cigar Mile was like the Travers, a solid evenly matched bunch but not strong, relative to other runnings.
Yes Cool Coal Man is coming to hand well right now (like his sire, a nice 4yo) and Macho Again, when he wants to be and when the situation is right, is a nice horse but as Sightseek pointed out, those two won major races because someone had too.
Comparing renewals of a given race I like to look at what I'd do if all of last years pp's were intesgrated into this years pp's for the same race. For obvious reasons its impossible but comparing such things is always speculative. Is there any horse who's pp's from last years Travers make you think he'd beat the major contenders in this year's running?

Maybe it wasn't the greatest field of all time but it wasn't the worse either. As I pointed out many of these horses have had time off(injuries) and I also pointed out many have gone on to win Gr.1's. The someone had to win argument is an opinion I can only agree or disagree with, it was a blanket statement. From what I have read from Sightseek, she is a knowledgable poster. So the comment was a little dissapointing after I used some examples that last yrs Travers was not as bad as what is widely believed. Maybe I had hoped for a better explanation, we will just have to wait and see what Colonel John does the rest of the year, where I was wrong earlier in the year on his winning return on turf, hey even I can get it wrong now and then.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by CSC

Maybe it wasn't the greatest field of all time but it wasn't the worse either. As I pointed out many of these horses have had time off(injuries) and I also pointed out many have gone on to win Gr.1's. The someone had to win argument is an opinion I can only agree or disagree with, it was a blanket statement. From what I have read from Sightseek, she is a knowledgable poster. So the comment was a little dissapointing after I used some examples that last yrs Travers was not as bad as what is widely believed. Maybe I had hoped for a better explanation, we will just have to wait and see what Colonel John does the rest of the year, where I was wrong earlier in the year on his winning return on turf, hey even I can get it wrong now and then.

If you look at it from a historical perspective, yes they won "big" races, but look at the horses who won those races before them:

http://www.pedigreequery.com/index.p...ld=view&id=288

Tale of Ekati and Harlem Rocker would have barely been on the screen if they were up against some of those horses. Macho Again lost to Bullsbay - the same Bullsbay who is probably one of the worst Whitney winners ever. Court Vision has burned more of my money than any horse who ever ran so I won't go there. My point was, the quality of the horses running in last years triple crown races and up to this year as older horses is markedly poor. While they may have won this race and that race, it doesn't make them any more talented.

We forgot to mention the wonderful Mambo In Seattle in this conversation. Last year's Travers was exciting because it was the first in a long time where it wasn't either a super horse cantering to victory or a small field, but it wasn't that talented of a field.

Personally I don't like how Colonel John was campaigned from the Travers to his turf victory so seeing him win that last race was neat.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

If you look at it from a historical perspective, yes they won "big" races, but look at the horses who won those races before them:

http://www.pedigreequery.com/index.p...ld=view&id=288

Tale of Ekati and Harlem Rocker would have barely been on the screen if they were up against some of those horses. Macho Again lost to Bullsbay - the same Bullsbay who is probably one of the worst Whitney winners ever. Court Vision has burned more of my money than any horse who ever ran so I won't go there. My point was, the quality of the horses running in last years triple crown races and up to this year as older horses is markedly poor. While they may have won this race and that race, it doesn't make them any more talented.

We forgot to mention the wonderful Mambo In Seattle in this conversation. Last year's Travers was exciting because it was the first in a long time where it wasn't either a super horse cantering to victory or a small field, but it wasn't that talented of a field.

Personally I don't like how Colonel John was campaigned from the Travers to his turf victory so seeing him win that last race was neat.

Comparing eras...that's a wide open discussion open to intrepetation, there are alot of mediocre races nowadays, I said earlier the days of campaigning a Cigar like horse are almost extinct, the better horses retire and are sent off to the farm. Which is a reason why we get horses beating each other now, this is probably what we have to look fwd to, if a horse is so good there is little chance of seeing them past their 3 yr old season, if we are lucky some run as a 4 yr old like Curlin, and even with him I can't say he was in the class of Cigar.

Colonel John may be Pacific Classic bound, if he wins that then what? He will have beaten Rail Trip and Informed. It probably won't get him a huge amount of respect but that's racing today. Thanks for the thoughtful response.

[boswd]

Originally Posted by CSC

Comparing eras...that's a wide open discussion open to intrepetation, there are alot of mediocre races nowadays, I said earlier the days of campaigning a Cigar like horse are almost extinct, the better horses retire and are sent off to the farm. Which is a reason why we get horses beating each other now, this is probably what we have to look fwd to, if a horse is so good there is little chance of seeing them past their 3 yr old season, if we are lucky some run as a 4 yr old like Curlin, and even with him I can't say he was in the class of Cigar.

Colonel John may be Pacific Classic bound, if he wins that then what? He will have beaten Rail Trip and Informed. It probably won't get him a huge amount of respect but that's racing today. Thanks for the thoughtful response.

I'm afraid that Great Day of the Breeders Cup has drastically changed the face of of horse racing for the worst.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by CSC

Comparing eras...that's a wide open discussion open to intrepetation, there are alot of mediocre races nowadays, I said earlier the days of campaigning a Cigar like horse are almost extinct, the better horses retire and are sent off to the farm. Which is a reason why we get horses beating each other now, this is probably what we have to look fwd to, if a horse is so good there is little chance of seeing them past their 3 yr old season, if we are lucky some run as a 4 yr old like Curlin, and even with him I can't say he was in the class of Cigar.

Colonel John may be Pacific Classic bound, if he wins that then what? He will have beaten Rail Trip and Informed. It probably won't get him a huge amount of respect but that's racing today. Thanks for the thoughtful response.

I'd agree that many of the good horses are not given a chance to show how good they really are due to abbreviated campaigns and early retirements (Bernardini, Hard Spun etc.), but I just think that the horses that ran last year have continued to show that they are more Grade 3 types winning Grade 1 races.