Oracle thanks for mushing Circular Quay

Originally Posted by Round Pen

Ok Guys you have a descent discussion going on here. But the big thing you guys are still overlooking is tha CQ of his dams Side has Strickly A Sprinters Pedigree And that is the way he ran in the lanes End.
No way Could I bet on this Horse in the Juvenille.
For those of you who did not see my post BEFORE the Lanes End on CQ here it is



OK Guys CQ will be somewhere in the line of 4/5 or less. LEt me tell you a couple of reasons why I think CQ is a bet Against.

A. I have seen to many young horses over the years that have a tremendous turn of foot Sprinting only to not show that same turn of foot around 2 turns and CQ kind of reminds me of that type of horse.

B. I am not as sold as some of you guys who think CQ has a pedigree that will stretch out. And heres why 1st off CQ is out of Circle of LIfe who made 10 Lifetime Starts with a record of 10---3-1-2 of those 10 starts 4 were made running a route of ground her record in those races were 4----0-0-2 and Sprinting COL had a record of 5----3-1-0.

C. Obviously Circle of Life was a much better Sprinter than she was a route horse, even though she was by Belong to Me who's off spring tend to do better at longer distances.

Just Because CQ is by Thunder Gulch alot of people will assume that a route of ground should be no problem.

And if you want to dig a little deeper in CQ pedigree CQ dam Circle of Life is out of Concentric who as of today has had 6 foals to race with only 1 of them winning a race around 2 turns.

I am not going to say that by looking at a certain horses pedigree that what I have stated here about CQ will hold up all the time I just think there are enough Negatives in his pedigree to take a stand against at 3/5.

By the way all the info I gathered here on CQ came from the APR.

Very good analysis. People often ignore the Dams side and place too much emphasis on the sire side.

Originally Posted by eurobounce

Very good analysis. People often ignore the Dams side and place too much emphasis on the sire side.

Oh for god's sake an after the race lets make the pedigree fit analysis. Please cmon, this is just ridiculous.

And did I read some comments about capping on polyturf. Horses that have a single gear? Capping the uncappable... I think I read some stuff. Im sure I did. More stuff to come as people start paying attention to the stuff on a larger scale.

Do not take this the wrong way, I do not idolize or think anyone is always correct. But if we did not have OUR never wrong NY er, you think the board will still be as good, or fun? We need people to be contrarions. We need people to take the other side to find out if what we think is true has merit, or is weaker than we thought. These type of boards have a variety of people that add their own little flavor. Thats what makes it taste good.

[Round Pen]

Heck Oracle I dont care all though a Piece of Cheescake would be nice right now

Originally Posted by Round Pen

Heck Oracle I dont care all though a Piece of Cheescake would be nice right now

Pen, LOL!!, I'm on Atkins right now and I suppose thats why that wager came to mind. Though I'd rather have the pizza, ah well.
My point to Bell was that in my limited watching of the surface its become apparent to me that horses with high early speed or a huge burst of it that they rely on to win have been completely up against it. I hadn't broken down the numbers like McGee did, but in watching races, which is what I do, it had become apparent to me that horses with an even running style who rip off 12's are the ones who like it. Its kinda like a lope, lope, lope, surface.
Since most good dirt horses(if not almost all of em) rely on early speed or a huge burst of speed within the race to win, its my contention that good dirt horses are cripppled on this surface.
Now I haven't bet so much as a thin dime on one of these poly races at Kee, not one, so its not like I'm bitter about blowing any bets. But I do like to see talent recognized and I find this surface to be completely disassociated from dirt. Its a seperate and unique surface, just like grass, and horses either like grass or they don't. I've never seen one tried again and again on grass who just learn to like it. They either do or they don't.
If Circular Quay runs the same way in the BC Juvy I will be the first one to say hes a closing sprinter. If Asi Siempre runs well an even hits the board in the Distaff i will say I was wrong about her winning because of the surface. But I won't be holding my breath, and doubt that any of the winners of the weekend's BC preps on the poly at Keeneland make any kind of impact whatsoever on BC day.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by oracle80

If Circular Quay runs the same way in the BC Juvy I will be the first one to say hes a closing sprinter. If Asi Siempre runs well an even hits the board in the Distaff i will say I was wrong about her winning because of the surface. But I won't be holding my breath, and doubt that any of the winners of the weekend's BC preps on the poly at Keeneland make any kind of impact whatsoever on BC day.

How about Circular Quay just isn't that good? He blew by a bunch of tired horses that ran four furlongs under 45 and were crawling home. Great Hunter would have won that race just as easily if not more easily. If you want to give me Great Hunter and Street Sense (my picks BEFORE the Lane's End) against Circular Quay in the BC Juvenile then I will happily take that bet.

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

How about Circular Quay just isn't that good? He blew by a bunch of tired horses that ran four furlongs under 45 and were crawling home. Great Hunter would have won that race just as easily if not more easily. If you want to give me Great Hunter and Street Sense (my picks BEFORE the Lane's End) against Circular Quay in the BC Juvenile then I will happily take that bet.

Using that race as a basis of his dirt ability would be the same as using a grass race as the basis. They are both foreign surfaces unlike dirt in any way. CQ will rebound in the BC, and beat both of those.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by oracle80

Using that race as a basis of his dirt ability would be the same as using a grass race as the basis. They are both foreign surfaces unlike dirt in any way. CQ will rebound in the BC, and beat both of those.

I was talking about the Hopeful. He was overrated from passing tired horses in that race. So if that surface will have no impact on the BC Juvenile then why won't you give me Great Hunter and Street Sense against him?

[Round Pen]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Oh for god's sake an after the race lets make the pedigree fit analysis. Please cmon, this is just ridiculous.

I am the one who did the Pedigee Analysis and I posted it way before the race so Give me a friggin Break and At least know what you are talkin about before you speak

Originally Posted by Round Pen

I am the one who did the Pedigee Analysis and I posted it way before the race so Give me a friggin Break and At least know what you are talkin about before you speak

Im not speaking, Im typing.

And I did not see your post before the race. So I apoligize and will add I think pedigree analysis on horses that have already run races is analysis that involves really reaching if you have to use it to handicap a race that is tough. If you have to use pedigree analysis as a final tool to decide who will win a race or who is to be bet on, you should not be betting on that race imo.

Too many people write about pedigrees and have not a flippin clue as to what genetics is all about. Well I do know genetics, and this pedigree stuff looks like a great hobby for playing breeder and getting a clue for first timers, but WAY over used and silly if you really understand genetics.

And since you know genetics I have another question that I have yet seen answered by any pedigree person:

Why, genetically speaking, should the dam theoretically have more influence on the stamina of its offspring? Why? Since you know pedigrees, lets see how much you know about genetics and cell biology. Because you have to understand these or your pedigree stuff is astrology.

[Round Pen]

Good for you I am glad you Know Genetics. That and 75 Cents will get you a cup of coffee. You know what I know Horses and If you would have read the beginning of my post you would have seen that. I was simply stating a couple of facts on CQ's dams side.

Take your Genetics to the betting windows and lets see how well you do.

Originally Posted by Round Pen

Good for you I am glad you Know Genetics. That and 75 Cents will get you a cup of coffee. You know what I know Horses and If you would have read the beginning of my post you would have seen that. I was simply stating a couple of facts on CQ's dams side.

Take your Genetics to the betting windows and lets see how well you do.

No answer. Uses pedigrees, does not even know genetics. And thats exactly why I dont take my genetics to the betting window, its way too difficult to transfer into performance. But you are able to do this...? And make money off it. No way.

[Round Pen]

Were in the world are you getting this I have never said that. Sure I use Pedigrees on Occassion But were in the World Did I say I make Money doing it this way. Your trying to put words into my mouth.

I must admit Oracle, being from New York I like your bravado, but your handicapping is primitive at best, and non-existent on its face. Yet it is your slamming of other posters with your prattle filled posts that is particularly annoying.

Just this thread you stated that: Great Hunter is one-paced, yet as a 2yo he has passed thirty horses in his six races! Hello!

Also you posted "horses with a burst of accelleration are screwed". Brilliant again.

As far as Marty McGee; years ago when I kept books, typed up owners' bills and many other duties for many Keeneland trainers such as "Rusty" Arnold, Neil Howard, Steve Penrod and others, Marty McGee would come around and I tried to teach him a bit of handicapping. Alas, he is a nice guy, but never learned much. If it wasn't for his connections, he would be in deep water.

I wish you no ill will, but be aware, your cappin needs a ton of work. BBB

[sumitas]

Well, CQ had a wider trip than the winner so it was closer than the final margin. I thought he looked ok.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by bellsbendboy

I must admit Oracle, being from New York I like your bravado, but your handicapping is primitive at best, and non-existent on its face. Yet it is your slamming of other posters with your prattle filled posts that is particularly annoying.

Just this thread you stated that: Great Hunter is one-paced, yet as a 2yo he has passed thirty horses in his six races! Hello!

Also you posted "horses with a burst of accelleration are screwed". Brilliant again.

As far as Marty McGee; years ago when I kept books, typed up owners' bills and many other duties for many Keeneland trainers such as "Rusty" Arnold, Neil Howard, Steve Penrod and others, Marty McGee would come around and I tried to teach him a bit of handicapping. Alas, he is a nice guy, but never learned much. If it wasn't for his connections, he would be in deep water.

I wish you no ill will, but be aware, your cappin needs a ton of work. BBB

Well, I must praise the Lord that you have appeared to pass along His judgement on all which is either brilliant, primitive or annoying, PRAISE be.

I'm sure Marty McGee has much to be thankful to you for as well.

How in the world can you determine and judge that someon's handicapping is worthy of you not slinging sh1t about it?

Guys like you who show up on message boards and toss around "insider" remarks and claim superiority crack me up.

Let me put it this way... if your ability was so superior, none of us would know who Hank Goldberg is. Think about that.

Originally Posted by bellsbendboy

I must admit Oracle, being from New York I like your bravado, but your handicapping is primitive at best, and non-existent on its face. Yet it is your slamming of other posters with your prattle filled posts that is particularly annoying.

Just this thread you stated that: Great Hunter is one-paced, yet as a 2yo he has passed thirty horses in his six races! Hello!

Also you posted "horses with a burst of accelleration are screwed". Brilliant again.

As far as Marty McGee; years ago when I kept books, typed up owners' bills and many other duties for many Keeneland trainers such as "Rusty" Arnold, Neil Howard, Steve Penrod and others, Marty McGee would come around and I tried to teach him a bit of handicapping. Alas, he is a nice guy, but never learned much. If it wasn't for his connections, he would be in deep water.

I wish you no ill will, but be aware, your cappin needs a ton of work. BBB

Hey Bellboy, when you handicap well enough to purchase a grade one winner off the track for a client like I have, then you can hope to get in my league. How many of those you buy off the track?

[Pedigree Ann]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Why, genetically speaking, should the dam theoretically have more influence on the stamina of its offspring? Why? Since you know pedigrees, lets see how much you know about genetics and cell biology. Because you have to understand these or your pedigree stuff is astrology.

Are you stating this as an established fact? Or as a frequently seen assertion? Or just for this one instance? The fact is that even classic winners and classic sires like Thunder Gulch sire a goodly number of horses who don't last out a classic distance. (Horses in the wild didn't need to run fast more than a couple of furlongs to get out of harm's way and without continuous human intervention, we wouldn't have horses who run longer distances; therefore, we have to keep testing, ie running the races, to find the ones with distance ability.) Having a mama who couldn't run long, although a mare of some class, puts CQ at a disadvantage in the genetic roulette game. I would also note that if on looks a horse strongly takes after one parent or the other, they are most likely to replicate that parent's distance preferences.

[georgewashington]

Originally Posted by Pedigree Ann

Are you stating this as an established fact? Or as a frequently seen assertion? Or just for this one instance? The fact is that even classic winners and classic sires like Thunder Gulch sire a goodly number of horses who don't last out a classic distance. (Horses in the wild didn't need to run fast more than a couple of furlongs to get out of harm's way and without continuous human intervention, we wouldn't have horses who run longer distances; therefore, we have to keep testing, ie running the races, to find the ones with distance ability.) Having a mama who couldn't run long, although a mare of some class, puts CQ at a disadvantage in the genetic roulette game. I would also note that if on looks a horse strongly takes after one parent or the other, they are most likely to replicate that parent's distance preferences. CQ doesn't remind me a lot of Thunder Gulch.

I am not sure that because a horse takes on the looks of the sire or mare that the horse is going to replicate that parent's distance performances. I can't honestly say I have ever seen any data that backs that up.

If you have ever seen Dynaformer, he is one of the ugliest horses ever to walk the face of the earth (mean bastard too), but his stamina has come through in some really attractive horses he sired.

There was a Dynaformer this year that was very attractive out of a Carson City mare. Obviously he didn't take on the looks of his daddy, but he got his stamina from him. Over the last few weeks he has even started to act a little like his daddy, which is actually a good thing right now.

[Pedigree Ann]

Originally Posted by georgewashington

I am not sure that because a horse takes on the looks of the sire or mare that the horse is going to replicate that parent's distance performances. I can't honestly say I have ever seen any data that backs that up.

This is my impression, not the results of any study. And like anything in heredity it is more tendency than certainty. You can always find a counter-example because nothing in TB ability inheritance is 100%. Even a good mating doesn't succeed every time, like the one that produced Mr. Prospector, which only 'hit' 1.5 times (if you consider Search for Gold a good horse) out of 5 tries.

I am curious - when you say 'ugly', are you talking about his face, his forelegs or hindlegs, or the entire conformational package? I am told that breeding people considered Sunday Silence ugly and that was one reason why Arthur Han**** couldn't find anyone to buy him for stud aside from the Japanese. (There was a great call - they drooled over Easy Goer and dismissed SS.) I didn't see it, especially not on the track. He wasn't a 'pretty horsie' like War Chant, but not particularly unattractive to my eye.