Shirreffs' latest gem

Thunder Gulch · #1 08-09-2010, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You have a point but at this point, winning the Goodwood doesn't do anything for them. There's no real upside. There's only downside. They don't need to run there to win HOY.

I'm sure they think they could win the Goodwood, but they probably figure "Why gamble at this point?". She would have to run harder in the Goodwood than the filly race. The harder you run, the more risk you take in terms of not coming out of a race good. Since their goal is to win the BC Classic, how dumb would they feel if she ran her butt off to win the Goodwood and it knocked her out? They are so close to their goal at this point. Why take a risk (even if it's only a small risk) when there is really no upside to that risk. They want to be 100% healthy for the BC Classic. The best way to ensure that happens is by having an easy race rather than a tough race for her final prep.

In addition, they are going to be taking a risk of getting beat in the BC Classic and ending her streak. At this point, I think they'd rather take that risk just once rather than twice.

"Only downside"...that sums it up. Actually facing a challenge and losing is considered downside in their mind. It's not about PROVING you are the best, it's all about perpetuating this fraud of a record. The horse isn't a fraud, she's a great mare, but the record is.

Rupert Pupkin · #2 08-09-2010, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thunder Gulch

"Only downside"...that sums it up. Actually facing a challenge and losing is considered downside in their mind. It's not about PROVING you are the best, it's all about perpetuating this fraud of a record. The horse isn't a fraud, she's a great mare, but the record is.

She will be facing the biggest challenge possible in the toughest race of the year in the BC Classic.

You can't say the record is a fraud. She's running in grade I after grade I.

As I said in another thread about a month ago, you guys are using a totally different standard to measure her than other great mares. Personal Ensign ran 10 of her 13 lifetime races at Belmont. She ran once at Saratoga and once at Monmouth. So out of her 13 lifetime races, 12 were in New York and 1 was in New Jersey. She only left the area once to run in Kentucky. And how many times did she face the boys? I think it was once. Yet I've never heard anyone complain that Personal Ensign didn't travel enough or didn't face the boys enough.

That being said, I still understand where you are all coming from. The grade 1s against fillies on the west coast are not very challening races for Z. As others have said, these races are almost like exhibitions. It is somewhat boring to watch Z beat up on medicore fillies. I agree with that. I see where you're all coming from. I understand why you would be frustrated. I don't blame you. But by the same token, I understand why the connections are doing what they are doing and I can't really fault them at this point. If they would have refused to face RA in the AB earlier in the year, then I would have faulted them. But they were actually eager to face RA. At this point, it's different. They are very close to their goal and they don't want to do anything to screw it up. I can't blamethem . I see where they're coming from. I also see where you are all coming from and I understand your frustration.

slotdirt · #3 08-09-2010, 04:50 PM

Rupert, with all due respect, you do understand that synthetics didn't exist anywhere in the USA aside from in the confines of Michael Dickinson's brain in 1986-1987 or so, right?

Rupert Pupkin · #4 08-09-2010, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Rupert, with all due respect, you do understand that synthetics didn't exist anywhere in the USA aside from in the confines of Michael Dickinson's brain in 1986-1987 or so, right?

If Z had never run on real dirt, people would have a right to wonder if she would be the same horse on the dirt. But she's run twice on dirt and she won easily both times.

Let's pretend we still had real dirt in California. Do you think the criticism of Z would be any less? I don't think so.

Scav · #5 08-09-2010, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

If Z had never run on real dirt, people would have a right to wonder if she would be the same horse on the dirt. But she's run twice on dirt and she won easily both times.

Let's pretend we still had real dirt in California. Do you think the criticism of Z would be any less? I don't think so.

Her dirt wins have been her best wins IMO. You can't change who shows up to face her, if there wasn't so many graded stakes races then there would be competitive races, why does everyone have such a hard on for her to ship across the country. I don't see people shipping from NY all the way to California every single day.

When she drills Rachel Alexandra they will blame something or someone. When she wins the BC Classic this year, people will still find something comedy to say. Its a tiresome argument.

ateamstupid · #6 08-09-2010, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scav

Her dirt wins have been her best wins IMO. You can't change who shows up to face her, if there wasn't so many graded stakes races then there would be competitive races, why does everyone have such a hard on for her to ship across the country. I don't see people shipping from NY all the way to California every single day.

When she drills Rachel Alexandra they will blame something or someone. When she wins the BC Classic this year, people will still find something comedy to say. Its a tiresome argument.

Just because your boner from being at Santa Anita and 'hearing the crowd roar' still hasn't gone down, doesn't mean we can't be dissatisfied with her campaign. If she beats Rachel and wins the BCC, it'll make me sad, not 'comedy'. Not sad because she proved me wrong or some other nonsense. Sad because we had a truly great horse whose talent was completely wasted for four years running on a joke surface against almost nothing but crows.

Scav · #7 08-09-2010, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Just because your boner from being at Santa Anita and 'hearing the crowd roar' still hasn't gone down, doesn't mean we can't be dissatisfied with her campaign. If she beats Rachel and wins the BCC, it'll make me sad, not 'comedy'. Not sad because she proved me wrong or some other nonsense. Sad because we had a truly great horse whose talent was completely wasted for four years running on a joke surface against almost nothing but crows.

Who says I am not dissatisfied? Quite honestly, I feel all the races she runs this year are bonus because she was suppose to be retired.

She can't control who shows up to run, she ran at Oaklawn and no one showed up, same would happen in NY or anywhere else.

Oh, and sorry for being excited about being at the great race place for a great race, sure beats being onsite and cheering one of those NY bred turf sprints home....

The Indomitable DrugS · #8 08-09-2010, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scav

Her dirt wins have been her best wins IMO.

I laughed.

Rupert Pupkin · #9 08-09-2010, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I laughed.

If you don't think her 2008 Apple Blossom was a huge race and possibly her best race, I don't know what you're smoking.

She ran 1:42 3/5 that day. They originally had the wrong time posted for the Oaklawn Handicap because the clock was screwed up. But after they fixed it and re-timed the race, it turns out that Tiago and Heatseeker ran 1:50 2/5 just two races later. At that time, they were two of the top 5 best colts in the country. On their best day, and I think they both ran their best that day, they were both very good horses.

Z ran much faster than they did. I think she could have run her another 1/16th of a mile in a lot faster than 7 4/5 seconds. I think Z's legitmate Beyer that day was around 115.

Cannon Shell · #10 08-10-2010, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scav

Her dirt wins have been her best wins IMO. You can't change who shows up to face her, if there wasn't so many graded stakes races then there would be competitive races, why does everyone have such a hard on for her to ship across the country. I don't see people shipping from NY all the way to California every single day.

When she drills Rachel Alexandra they will blame something or someone. When she wins the BC Classic this year, people will still find something comedy to say. Its a tiresome argument.

After 18 starts we shouldn't need IMO's. She needs to ship OR run against better horses where she is at. If they won't run against the dreck that is the older male division in CA then she needs to PROVE that she can beat the older, less dreadful horses in the East or at the very least take on RA.

And we aren't talking about "people" we are talking about a horse that we are supposed to believe is an all-time great.

The reason that people are finding something comedy to say is that the connections have plotted a comedy schedule and want everyone to believe that it isn't. The sport used to be played on the track, not in the popular opinion polls. If she had shipped east and beaten RA or won the Whitney field, the comdeyness that you talk about would have been over.

ateamstupid · #11 08-09-2010, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You can't say the record is a fraud.

Yes, you definitely can. Again with the "Grade I" nonsense. How many legitimate Grade I horses has she beaten in her Grade I's this year? Stop being ridiculous.

slotdirt · #12 08-09-2010, 04:57 PM

I'd have to imagine at some point we'll see something like G1S (similar to G1T) in the stakes schedules to annotate that a particular race is run on a third, decidedly not dirt or turf surface.

In any event, the ludicrousness of this fear of traveling mentioned several times now by Shireffs is particularly magnified when one looks at the PP's of some of Shireffs' other "stars" in the synthetic track era.

Rupert Pupkin · #13 08-09-2010, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Yes, you definitely can. Again with the "Grade I" nonsense. How many legitimate Grade I horses has she beaten in her Grade I's this year? Stop being ridiculous.

I agree that many of her grade 1s have been very weak fields. But on a horse's resume, a grade I is a grade I. I'd be thrilled to buy a mare and win a bad grade I. A mare's value goes through the roof when they win a grade I.

It's not as if there are great mares out there sitting on the sidelines. Every owner wants to win a grade I because it makes the value of their horse go up by 5x. If there were any mares whose connections thought they could beat Z in these grade 1s, they'd be there.

Rupert Pupkin · #14 08-09-2010, 05:21 PM

Just to repeat what I said in an edited post earlier, I understand where you are all coming from. The grade 1s against fillies on the west coast are not very challening races for Z. As others have said, these races are almost like exhibitions. It is somewhat boring to watch Z beat up on medicore fillies. I agree with that. I see where you're all coming from. I understand why you would be frustrated. I don't blame you. But by the same token, I understand why the connections are doing what they are doing and I can't really fault them at this point. If they would have refused to face RA in the AB earlier in the year, then I would have faulted them. But they were actually eager to face RA. At this point, it's different. They are very close to their goal and they don't want to do anything to screw it up. I can't blame them . I see where they're coming from. I also see where you are all coming from and I understand your frustration.

Thunder Gulch · #15 08-09-2010, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Just to repeat what I said in an edited post earlier, I understand where you are all coming from. The grade 1s against fillies on the west coast are not very challening races for Z. As others have said, these races are almost like exhibitions. It is somewhat boring to watch Z beat up on medicore fillies. I agree with that. I see where you're all coming from. I understand why you would be frustrated. I don't blame you. But by the same token, I understand why the connections are doing what they are doing and I can't really fault them at this point. If they would have refused to face RA in the AB earlier in the year, then I would have faulted them. But they were actually eager to face RA. At this point, it's different. They are very close to their goal and they don't want to do anything to screw it up. I can't blame them . I see where they're coming from. I also see where you are all coming from and I understand your frustration.

Here's another fallacy you Zen folks can't seem to get through your heads. It isn't about facing Rachel Alexandra. Get that. It's about PROVING you are a great horse by beating the best competition in the best races. The owners of the best horses always looked for the best races to show their stuff in, but these guys are different. They are more interested in protecting a record than running against the best horses. The filly crop of older horses is pathetic, but at least they could try to beat Misremembered in the Big Cap. That shouldn't be a problem if she is all you think she is.

ateamstupid · #16 08-09-2010, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thunder Gulch

Here's another fallacy you Zen folks can't seem to get through your heads. It isn't about facing Rachel Alexandra. Get that. It's about PROVING you are a great horse by beating the best competition in the best races. The owners of the best horses always looked for the best races to show their stuff in, but these guys are different. They are more interested in protecting a record than running against the best horses. The filly crop of older horses is pathetic, but at least they could try to beat Misremembered in the Big Cap. That shouldn't be a problem if she is all you think she is.

BUT HOW MANY TIMES DID PERSONAL ENSIGN BEAT MALES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! SHE'LL DIE IF SHE FACES MALES THAT OFTEN!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dahoss · #17 08-09-2010, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Just because your boner from being at Santa Anita and 'hearing the crowd roar' still hasn't gone down, doesn't mean we can't be dissatisfied with her campaign. If she beats Rachel and wins the BCC, it'll make me sad, not 'comedy'. Not sad because she proved me wrong or some other nonsense. Sad because we had a truly great horse whose talent was completely wasted for four years running on a joke surface against almost nothing but crows.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thunder Gulch

Here's another fallacy you Zen folks can't seem to get through your heads. It isn't about facing Rachel Alexandra. Get that. It's about PROVING you are a great horse by beating the best competition in the best races. The owners of the best horses always looked for the best races to show their stuff in, but these guys are different. They are more interested in protecting a record than running against the best horses. The filly crop of older horses is pathetic, but at least they could try to beat Misremembered in the Big Cap. That shouldn't be a problem if she is all you think she is.

Rupert Pupkin · #18 08-09-2010, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thunder Gulch

Here's another fallacy you Zen folks can't seem to get through your heads. It isn't about facing Rachel Alexandra. Get that. It's about PROVING you are a great horse by beating the best competition in the best races. The owners of the best horses always looked for the best races to show their stuff in, but these guys are different. They are more interested in protecting a record than running against the best horses. The filly crop of older horses is pathetic, but at least they could try to beat Misremembered in the Big Cap. That shouldn't be a problem if she is all you think she is.

You say, "The owners of the best horses always looked for the best races to show their stuff in, but these guys are different."

That is untrue. Most of the great mares usually run against mares. Some of them run against the boys sometimes, but that's not really expected and that's not really the norm. If you look at the records of most great mares, the majority of them usually ran against mares. It may be a little different in Europe, but not over here.

ateamstupid · #19 08-09-2010, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I agree that many of her grade 1s have been very weak fields. But on a horse's resume, a grade I is a grade I. I'd be thrilled to buy a mare and win a bad grade I. A mare's value goes through the roof when they win a grade I.

It's not as if there are great mares out there sitting on the sidelines. Every owner wants to win a grade I because it makes the value of their horse go up by 5x. If there were any mares whose connections thought they could beat Z in these grade 1s, they'd be there.

Really? So now the discussion is about broodmare value? Nice deflection. We're talking about level of competition, and it has been piss poor. Period. Enough with the excuses.

Rupert Pupkin · #20 08-09-2010, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Really? So now the discussion is about broodmare value? Nice deflection. We're talking about level of competition, and it has been piss poor. Period. Enough with the excuses.

The point about broodmare value is that as long as grade 1s are so important for broodmare value, you're never going to get really easy grade 1s.

You have to remember that one of the reasons these races out west have been so easy is because Z is scaring the competition away. If Z wasn't in these races, you would have more shippers from the east coast coming out west to win a grade I. Top mares from the east coast don't want to fly out west to face Z. If Z wasn't in these races, you would have more of these top mares coming out west for a grade I. It's not Z's fault that she's scaring the competition away. That is the point you are missing.