Chance Sea the Stars comes to BC?

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Arc winners are notoriously great bets in the Turf.

Some may say it's irrelevant but I'm on the side of believing that after seeing a good number of failures, I'm going to need to see it done first. For whatever reasons, none have been able to do it and some of those were good horses, especially Dancing Brave. Why horses that have lost the Arc have been able to come over and win is a mystery to me. Same deal with the QE II and the Mile.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Some may say it's irrelevant but I'm on the side of believing that after seeing a good number of failures, I'm going to need to see it done first. For whatever reasons, none have been able to do it and some of those were good horses, especially Dancing Brave. Why horses that have lost the Arc have been able to come over and win is a mystery to me. Same deal with the QE II and the Mile.

Dancing Brave coming here and losing has virtually nothing to do with Sea the Stars potentially losing. It is the same as the Derby nonsense written every year like you cant win with a 6 week layoff or you must run as a 2 year old or you must have the correct dosage.

[hockey2315]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Dancing Brave coming here and losing has virtually nothing to do with Sea the Stars potentially losing. It is the same as the Derby nonsense written every year like you cant win with a 6 week layoff or you must run as a 2 year old or you must have the correct dosage.

This is absurd. There's a very obvious reason why these horses underperform EVERY TIME in the Breeders' Cup. They're over the top and the race is almost always an afterthought for them. They've just ran a very taxing race 4 weeks prior - the race they were pointed to for months - and then they're thrown in the BC (after shipping) and expected to perform the same way they did in Europe. There's always the possibility for an aberration - and maybe STS is the horse good enough to produce it - but at 4/5 there's no value in expecting him to do what has never been done.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by hockey2315

This is absurd. There's a very obvious reason why these horses underperform EVERY TIME in the Breeders' Cup. They're over the top and the race is almost always an afterthought for them. They've just ran a very taxing race 4 weeks prior - the race they were pointed to for months - and then they're thrown in the BC (after shipping) and expected to perform the same way they did in Europe. There's always the possibility for an aberration - and maybe STS is the horse good enough to produce it - but at 4/5 there's no value in expecting him to do what has never been done.

No absurd is thinking that different horses 30 years apart lost BECAUSE of the a particular race they ran in. It is like saying that Bills cant ever win the Super Bowl because they lost 4 straight a decade ago. (of course this year they cant win because they stink but that is a different story)

[hockey2315]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

No absurd is thinking that different horses 30 years apart lost BECAUSE of the a particular race they ran in. It is like saying that Bills cant ever win the Super Bowl because they lost 4 straight a decade ago. (of course this year they cant win because they stink but that is a different story)

How about 1 or 2 years apart? I understand your point, and it would be a valid one, IF there wasn't a clear and logical explanation that applies to both previous post-Arc disappointments and future ones. I could just as easily argue that Sea the Stars will be over the top based strictly on his own situation, but citing past instances only strengthens and supports my case.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by hockey2315

How about 1 or 2 years apart? I understand your point, and it would be a valid one, IF there wasn't a clear and logical explanation that applies to both previous post-Arc disappointments and future ones. I could just as easily argue that Sea the Stars will be over the top based strictly on his own situation, but citing past instances only strengthens and supports my case.

He may be over the top but that isnt because he won the Arc. Would he be more likely to win if he had gotten trapped and couldnt have gotten out until too late and ran 3rd? Each loss has its own reasoning. Each year is different, each horse is different, each set of circumstances is different, each training method is different, each horses preferences are different, each turf course is different (except this year of course)...The only thing in common is the name of the races.

[hockey2315]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

He may be over the top but that isnt because he won the Arc. Would he be more likely to win if he had gotten trapped and couldnt have gotten out until too late and ran 3rd? Each loss has its own reasoning. Each year is different, each horse is different, each set of circumstances is different, each training method is different, each horses preferences are different, each turf course is different (except this year of course)...The only thing in common is the name of the races.

The fact that he won instead of finishing 2nd, 3rd, etc. is basically irrelevant to me when considering his likelihood to be over-the-top so I agree with you there. . . that's obvious. . . BUT it has a significant effect on the value (or lack thereof) that he will offer.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

No absurd is thinking that different horses 30 years apart lost BECAUSE of the a particular race they ran in. It is like saying that Bills cant ever win the Super Bowl because they lost 4 straight a decade ago. (of course this year they cant win because they stink but that is a different story)

Being a Bills fan I resemble that remark. They are destined to be losers as long as Ralph is still the owner. The game has passed him by. With the advent of free agency he chooses to no longer compete.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by jms62

Being a Bills fan I resemble that remark. They are destined to be losers as long as Ralph is still the owner. The game has passed him by. With the advent of free agency he chooses to no longer compete.

Very true but nothing to do with the failures of the past

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Dancing Brave coming here and losing has virtually nothing to do with Sea the Stars potentially losing. It is the same as the Derby nonsense written every year like you cant win with a 6 week layoff or you must run as a 2 year old or you must have the correct dosage.

Dancing Brave alone, I'd agree. But I'm pretty sure you know that Dancing Brave is not the only Arc winner that has come over and lost the Turf. I don't believe in none of that Derby nonsense and I also don't believe it's impossible to win the Arc and the Turf. As has been mentioned before, Trempolino was a nose away from doing it and there have been several runners that have exited the Arc as losers only to win the Turf. So running well in both races is possible. But as of yet, it hasn't happened that a horse has been able to win both and we can come up with a million excuses for the losers but in the end, they still lost and betting one to do it is probably not the smartest of bets.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Dancing Brave alone, I'd agree. But I'm pretty sure you know that Dancing Brave is not the only Arc winner that has come over and lost the Turf. I don't believe in none of that Derby nonsense and I also don't believe it's impossible to win the Arc and the Turf. As has been mentioned before, Trempolino was a nose away from doing it and there have been several runners that have exited the Arc as losers only to win the Turf. So running well in both races is possible. But as of yet, it hasn't happened that a horse has been able to win both and we can come up with a million excuses for the losers but in the end, they still lost and betting one to do it is probably not the smartest of bets.

It may not be a smart bet because the Arc winners would be overbet but winning the Arc doesnt make a horse less likely to win the Turf.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Dancing Brave alone, I'd agree. But I'm pretty sure you know that Dancing Brave is not the only Arc winner that has come over and lost the Turf. I don't believe in none of that Derby nonsense and I also don't believe it's impossible to win the Arc and the Turf. As has been mentioned before, Trempolino was a nose away from doing it and there have been several runners that have exited the Arc as losers only to win the Turf. So running well in both races is possible. But as of yet, it hasn't happened that a horse has been able to win both and we can come up with a million excuses for the losers but in the end, they still lost and betting one to do it is probably not the smartest of bets.

One of the main problems figuring this problem out is that not very many horses have tried the double you're speaking of.

Only 5 horses (Dancing Brave, Trempolino, Saumarez, Subotica, and Dylan Thomas) have attempted the feat. In addition, I'm pretty sure that Saumarez and Subotica were both upset winners of the Arc.

Meanwhile, 6 Arc also-rans have won the BC along with numerous placings.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

One of the main problems figuring this problem out is that not very many horses have tried the double you're speaking of.

Only 5 horses (Dancing Brave, Trempolino, Saumarez, Subotica, and Dylan Thomas) have attempted the feat. In addition, I'm pretty sure that Saumarez and Subotica were both upset winners of the Arc.

Meanwhile, 6 Arc also-rans have won the BC along with numerous placings.

It's true that only five have tried it but there's something interesting about that. Of the five, four were tried in the first nine years and that's after missing the first two years so really, four came in a seven year span. After Subotica in 1992, no more tried the race until 2007. I remember reading some years back that part of the reasoning was because of what I'm saying now. If you notice, there's that same sort of trend with the QE II and the Mile. They sent over eight winners and to try the Mile and all eight have lost. They haven't sent one to the Mile though since 1998 So eight in the first 15 running and none in the last 10. It might be strictly a coincidence that no winners of either race has come over and won the Mile or Turf and it's especially odd since so many also-rans have come and done well in both races. But I don't think it's coincidence that they have stopped even trying. I actually think it's two main reasons. One is because the horses are a little over the top, again hard to explain because of the also-rans. But another reason why I think it's hard is because I think the winners of those two European horses are often better suited to longer races in the US. I've always thought that you could add at least a furlong and often two furlongs to what most would consider their best distance at home. I've always thought QE II winners would be better suited to the Classic and you've seen in recent years that they've been trying that now and even ran Falbrav in the Turf. Perhaps the reason also-rans from the QE II have been successful in the Mile because 8f was their best distance and that's why they came up short in England. Perhaps the same reasoning applies in some way to the Arc. They can handle 12f just fine and that's why the Turf is not a problem but the reason they can't win the Arc is because the Arc more demanding than the 12f would suggest and maybe if Arc winners were able to come over here for a 13-14f race, they'd dominate it.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Perhaps the reason also-rans from the QE II have been successful in the Mile because 8f was their best distance and that's why they came up short in England. Perhaps the same reasoning applies in some way to the Arc. They can handle 12f just fine and that's why the Turf is not a problem but the reason they can't win the Arc is because the Arc more demanding than the 12f would suggest and maybe if Arc winners were able to come over here for a 13-14f race, they'd dominate it.

Well, you also have horses like Conduit and Milan who won the St. Leger go on to do well in the Turf. Red Rocks placed in the St. Leger as well.

I think its more of the better Arc winners staying home, an indirect statement that the French race trumps the BC and it's alleged "World Thoroughbred Championship".

It's quite possible the Turf would have a different history of winners had Zarkava, Sinndar, Dalakhani, Sakhee, and Montjeu in his prime, showed up. But at the same time, we'd probably have gotten one or two more "Dancing Braves" in the process.

As for the Queen Elizabeth, I'm not sure that's necessarily the premier mile race in Europe. Most of the winners from previous years read like a who's who of Group 2 calibur horses. And in recent years, as you said, most that have come over have tried the Classic.

In addition, it seems to me that the Queen Elizabeth II is a sort of "graveyard of favorites" if you will. Giant's Causeway, Miesque, Hawk Wing, among others tasted defeat in the race. At one point, even Raven's Pass win over Henrythenavigator was considered an upset.

Meanwhile, the top French mile, the Prix du Moulin, has produced 5 BC Mile winners.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Well, you also have horses like Conduit and Milan who won the St. Leger go on to do well in the Turf. Red Rocks placed in the St. Leger as well.

I think its more of the better Arc winners staying home, an indirect statement that the French race trumps the BC and it's alleged "World Thoroughbred Championship".

It's quite possible the Turf would have a different history of winners had Zarkava, Sinndar, Dalakhani, Sakhee, and Montjeu in his prime, showed up. But at the same time, we'd probably have gotten one or two more "Dancing Braves" in the process.

As for the Queen Elizabeth, I'm not sure that's necessarily the premier mile race in Europe. Most of the winners from previous years read like a who's who of Group 2 calibur horses. And in recent years, as you said, most that have come over have tried the Classic.

In addition, it seems to me that the Queen Elizabeth II is a sort of "graveyard of favorites" if you will. Giant's Causeway, Miesque, Hawk Wing, among others tasted defeat in the race. At one point, even Raven's Pass win over Henrythenavigator was considered an upset.

Meanwhile, the top French mile, the Prix du Moulin, has produced 5 BC Mile winners.

I feel quite sure that you are right that had Zarkava come over and if Sea the Stars came, those are the kinds of horses that would overcome any disadvantages because they are just so good. It's just a weird thing as to why none have won. With the QE II, I think it's much clearer. The course at Ascot is demanding. Running 8f there is not like running it at other courses so it's more a test of stamina than your normal mile. I think that's why some of those really good horses you mentioned lost. They were true milers and were found wanting in the final stages of that race.

[Soaring Softly]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

One of the main problems figuring this problem out is that not very many horses have tried the double you're speaking of.

Only 5 horses (Dancing Brave, Trempolino, Saumarez, Subotica, and Dylan Thomas) have attempted the feat. In addition, I'm pretty sure that Saumarez and Subotica were both upset winners of the Arc.

Meanwhile, 6 Arc also-rans have won the BC along with numerous placings.

Don't forget Sakhee. He won the Arc in 2001 and came back in that year's Classic to lose by a short nose. That makes 6, unless we're only talking specifically about horses attempting an Arc-Breeders Cup Turf double.

It's funny.....I remember in the days leading up to that eventful 2001 Breeders Cup, Godolphin was keeping it very close to the vest as to which race Fantastic Light and Sakhee would run. The only thing that everybody knew is that they wouldn't both run in the same race. The general consensus was that Sakhee would go in the Turf and Fantastic Light in the Classic. There was quite a lot of surprised people when final entries were drawn and it turned out to be just the opposite.

And they came just Tiznow's nose short of being exactly right!

[johnny pinwheel]

there was that horse in the mile, i forget his name but he was 4-5 and the horse of the ages at the time. he lost, blocked for a quarter mile. anyone thats watched the BC for more than a year or two realizes that there are no cinches that day. "this horse can't lose", usualy means look around at the others.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by johnny pinwheel

there was that horse in the mile, i forget his name but he was 4-5 and the horse of the ages at the time. he lost, blocked for a quarter mile. anyone thats watched the BC for more than a year or two realizes that there are no cinches that day. "this horse can't lose", usualy means look around at the others.

rock of gibraltar maybe?