Is Paddy O'Prado the new Dancing Forever

[CSC]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

What was wrong with the ride? He was basically running on the lead. Was he not supposed to peek back to see who was coming? How was he supposed to know when to move? His trip was close to perfect.

Kent got lucky and found the rail and his horse was good enough to get through. Interactif losing had nothing to do with his jockey.

It was a very subtle mistake he made, instead of pinching an advantage at the top of the stretch he waited for POP to gain position on the turn and pull up to his inside and that was the whole ballgame, one can say there was nothing wrong about the ride and if you are riding safe I guess that is the case, however in the subtle things that make a difference in winning and losing it was a mediocre ride, the rider had the horse off the pace in the 2 path waited until POP to make his move, lost the tactical advantage and kicked on. Being reactive rather than proactive, any journeyman jockey could reproduce a ride like that, no need for Pletcher to fly in Javier.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by CSC

It was a very subtle mistake he made, instead of pinching an advantage at the top of the stretch he waited for POP to gain position on the turn and pull up to his inside and that was the whole ballgame, one can say there was nothing wrong about the ride and if you are riding safe I guess that is the case, however in the subtle things that make a difference in winning and losing it was a mediocre ride, the rider had the horse off the pace in the 2 path waited until POP to make his move, lost the tactical advantage and kicked on. Being reactive rather than proactive, any journeyman jockey could reproduce a ride like that, no need for Pletcher to fly in Javier.

I dunno that it cost Interactif the race, but your first sentence struck me as the polar opposite of the great ride Cisco Torres gave Workin For Hops in the American Derby yesterday at Arlington.

Tactical pace, near the front, all the threats coming from the back, and instead of waiting til the lane to ask his horse, he opened up about 5/16-3/8 out and basically said "come and get me," and left everyone with way too much to do. Not sure he wins a quarter mile sprint against that bunch, but the horse was loaded and he cut him loose. It was superb.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I dunno that it cost Interactif the race, but your first sentence struck me as the polar opposite of the great ride Cisco Torres gave Workin For Hops in the American Derby yesterday at Arlington.

Tactical pace, near the front, all the threats coming from the back, and instead of waiting til the lane to ask his horse, he opened up about 5/16-3/8 out and basically said "come and get me," and left everyone with way too much to do. Not sure he wins a quarter mile sprint against that bunch, but the horse was loaded and he cut him loose. It was superb.

I am glad someone here understands what I am trying to say, If you are much the best yeah sure there was nothing wrong with Castallano's ride yesterday, Torres knew what he was doing he was alteast going for it. I can live with rides like these, but when you have a foe that is pretty much evenly matched you have to try to take every advantage you can get, pinch a lead, save ground, hug the rail, I didn't see that from his ride yesterday, he couldn't even steer him straight and smoothly on the final turn. I am not saying Interactif would have won had he done all these things correctly, however I do think these 2 are more closely evenly matched than the 1.75 lengths from yesterday's race apparently showed.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Interactiff could have been in front of Paddy O' Prado. He could have been behind him. He could have been inside of him. He could have been outside of him. But no matter what, he wouldn't have beaten him. Paddy was much the best and there was no scenario where Interactiff would have beaten him.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Interactiff could have been in front of Paddy O' Prado. He could have been behind him. He could have been inside of him. He could have been outside of him. But no matter what, he wouldn't have beaten him. Paddy was much the best and there was no scenario where Interactiff would have beaten him.

Much the best, I don't agree.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by CSC

It was a very subtle mistake he made, instead of pinching an advantage at the top of the stretch he waited for POP to gain position on the turn and pull up to his inside and that was the whole ballgame, one can say there was nothing wrong about the ride and if you are riding safe I guess that is the case, however in the subtle things that make a difference in winning and losing it was a mediocre ride, the rider had the horse off the pace in the 2 path waited until POP to make his move, lost the tactical advantage and kicked on. Being reactive rather than proactive, any journeyman jockey could reproduce a ride like that, no need for Pletcher to fly in Javier.

So if Kent doesnt get a rail pass, is Castellano's ride still mediocre? Was he supposed to move early with the cheap speed that was in front?

A jockey isn't supposed to be a hero. He put his horse in a position to win and if the horse is good enough yesterday, he wins. The trip was perfect. If he starts early and dies in midstretch, you guys would be bitching about how he started him too early and he should have waited.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

So if Kent doesnt get a rail pass, is Castellano's ride still mediocre? Was he supposed to move early with the cheap speed that was in front?

A jockey isn't supposed to be a hero. He put his horse in a position to win and if the horse is good enough yesterday, he wins. The trip was perfect. If he starts early and dies in midstretch, you guys would be bitching about how he started him too early and he should have waited.

I don't think you understand, read my post above you will see my point, Jockies can make a difference between winning and losing, we see this all the time, however Javier rode the race you would expect him to ride the 9th race on Wednesday. He was caught with his pants down when Kent Snuck up on him on the inside and he lost his tactical edge. He should have started his run when POP started his and try to make that one catch him, however he decided that it was better to be lazy and rode him too cutely and nonchalantly.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by CSC

I don't think you understand, read my post above you will see my point, Jockies can make a difference between winning and losing, we see this all the time, however Javier rode the race you would expect him to ride the 9th race on Wednesday. He was caught with his pants down when Kent Snuck up on him on the inside and he lost his tactical edge. He should have started his run when POP startted his and try to make that one catch him, however he decided that it was better to be lazy and rode him too cutely and nonchalantly.

What? Earlier in the thread, you are complaining about Javier sneaking peeks. Now you are saying that Kent some how "snuck up on him". How could Kent have snuck up on him if Javier was peeking back the whole time?

Tactical edge? Kent got through a lucky hole. Many horses aren't good enough to get through that hole and most jockeys aren't brave enough to try. How does this have anything to do with how Castellano rode his horse? Getting through that hole was the difference in the race. Period. If you want to say that Kent rode a superior race, being that far off those fractions, I don't know what to tell you. Interactif was in perfect position. The horse wins if he is good enough. There was nothing "cute" or "lazy" about the ride. The horse wasn't good enough saturday.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

What? Earlier in the thread, you are complaining about Javier sneaking peeks. Now you are saying that Kent some how "snuck up on him". How could Kent have snuck up on him if Javier was peeking back the whole time?

Tactical edge? Kent got through a lucky hole. Many horses aren't good enough to get through that hole and most jockeys aren't brave enough to try. How does this have anything to do with how Castellano rode his horse? Getting through that hole was the difference in the race. Period. If you want to say that Kent rode a superior race, being that far off those fractions, I don't know what to tell you. Interactif was in perfect position. The horse wins if he is good enough. There was nothing "cute" or "lazy" about the ride. The horse wasn't good enough saturday.

I'm glad you can admit Kent got lucky and got through the rail. Maybe you don't understand what getting the jump on the field is, but do look at the race Workin For Hops ran on Saturday and what a proactive ride can do.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by CSC

I'm glad you can admit Kent got lucky and got through the rail. Maybe you don't understand what getting the jump on the field is, but do look at the race Workin For Hops ran on Saturday and what a proactive ride can do.

Just to jump back in for a second, as president of the Workin For Hops Fan Club, and I think that you know I feel this way and I am (against my better judgment after the past year) going to give you credit and say that I think you know this too, but want to be sure: The proactive ride and cutting a horse loose at the 3/8 pole is not *always* the smart thing to do. Maybe I'm giving Cisco too much credit, but I think that it's a really sharp thing to do when your main competition is going to be closing from far back -- that's when I want to see my rider cut a horse loose and leave the closers with way too much to do.

Both the American Derby and Virginia Derby, IMO, were those kinds of races this weekend, but like I said, it may not have made a difference anyway at Colonial. If they both show up in the Secretariat, we're likely going to find out what that kind of ride looks like when Paddy O'Prado is in the race too and we'll find out what he's made of.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Just to jump back in for a second, as president of the Workin For Hops Fan Club, and I think that you know I feel this way and I am (against my better judgment after the past year) going to give you credit and say that I think you know this too, but want to be sure: The proactive ride and cutting a horse loose at the 3/8 pole is not *always* the smart thing to do. Maybe I'm giving Cisco too much credit, but I think that it's a really sharp thing to do when your main competition is going to be closing from far back -- that's when I want to see my rider cut a horse loose and leave the closers with way too much to do.

Both the American Derby and Virginia Derby, IMO, were those kinds of races this weekend, but like I said, it may not have made a difference anyway at Colonial. If they both show up in the Secretariat, we're likely going to find out what that kind of ride looks like when Paddy O'Prado is in the race too and we'll find out what he's made of.

This is an interesting point about handicapping that isn't discussed enough, there are no 2 correct ways of riding horses. The main point I am trying to stress is the often mentioned premature move is not necessarily accurate and really for this board is far too simplistic. For horses like a Gio Ponti, who are deep closers you wait and make that one big run, for others simply saving that horse for the final 2/8ths and not pay attention to race dynamics is a closed way of thinking, if one watches Interactif's best turf races, his runs are on the turn, where he separates himself from the opposition as he did at Saratoga last year when he beat POP. I don't know if he would have beaten POP this Saturday if he was allowed to run this same way, but he would have been in a better position to succeed IMO>.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

What? Earlier in the thread, you are complaining about Javier sneaking peeks. Now you are saying that Kent some how "snuck up on him". How could Kent have snuck up on him if Javier was peeking back the whole time?

Tactical edge? Kent got through a lucky hole. Many horses aren't good enough to get through that hole and most jockeys aren't brave enough to try. How does this have anything to do with how Castellano rode his horse? Getting through that hole was the difference in the race. Period. If you want to say that Kent rode a superior race, being that far off those fractions, I don't know what to tell you. Interactif was in perfect position. The horse wins if he is good enough. There was nothing "cute" or "lazy" about the ride. The horse wasn't good enough saturday.

Completely agree.