The 3-year-old males

Danzig · #1 02-06-2011, 08:53 AM

not sure why there's surprise that new horses are getting mentioned. it happens every spring, with media and fans jumping from horse to horse, from week to week. besides, many top horses from last year will be caught and passed by their peers. always fun to watch it all unfold.

Betsy · #2 02-06-2011, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

not sure why there's surprise that new horses are getting mentioned. it happens every spring, with media and fans jumping from horse to horse, from week to week. besides, many top horses from last year will be caught and passed by their peers. always fun to watch it all unfold.

No surprise and this year it really is a promising crop, with newbies seemingly popping up every day, but until we see that an Uncle Mo or To Honor and Serve or even a Boys at Toscanova haven't improved, isn't it premature to talk about them being surpassed (not that you are saying it, but it's being implied in some corners)? Some of these newcomers being mentioned have beaten up on bad fields and may never (or they may) pass the class test.

Danzig · #3 02-06-2011, 10:23 AM

why wouldn't some imply it? isn't boys at toscanova out of training right now? or am i confusing him with someone else? as for the others, until they debut, they're a mystery. two year old form doesn't mean a whole lot now. it's a brand new season.

Betsy · #4 02-06-2011, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

why wouldn't some imply it? isn't boys at toscanova out of training right now? or am i confusing him with someone else? as for the others, until they debut, they're a mystery. two year old form doesn't mean a whole lot now. it's a brand new season.

I know that, but who's to say that these newcomers are going to be any good given that some of them have beaten mediocre allowance fields or straight maidens? I just think it's premature to have some of these newbies leapfrogging some horses that have at least proven their class. For me, until the horses from last year prove they haven't progressed, they shouldn't lose their spots on Derby lists to horses that are also unproven in some way.

Danzig · #5 02-06-2011, 10:48 AM

a horse that hasn't run in months doesn't necessarily deserve to remain on any list either. this is very much a sport of what have you done lately. i for one would prefer more attention be placed on runners; anyone can claim to have talent in the barn. was shaking my head while reading the other day about horses with two planned starts before the derby. that's pathetic.
i wish they'd change the earnings system to get in the derby. remove 2 yo graded earnings from consideration, that would bring out the runners!

Betsy · #6 02-06-2011, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

a horse that hasn't run in months doesn't necessarily deserve to remain on any list either. this is very much a sport of what have you done lately. i for one would prefer more attention be placed on runners; anyone can claim to have talent in the barn. was shaking my head while reading the other day about horses with two planned starts before the derby. that's pathetic.
i wish they'd change the earnings system to get in the derby. remove 2 yo graded earnings from consideration, that would bring out the runners!

I respect your opinion, but I can not agree with replacing some of the very top 2 year olds from last year with allowance/maiden winners from this year...

As to the 2 starts, well those are the plans for Uncle Mo and THAS. I can't speak for Uncle Mo, but I trust Bill Mott to know what's best for his horse. Its' not like he won't run the horse this year, unlike Godolphin, who keeps their horses in the barn half the year and plans campaigns that last maybe 3 starts.

Danzig · #7 02-06-2011, 02:28 PM

who said anything about replacing? lol you put too much stock in derby lists and rankings. especially at this point in the year. i'm talking about the coverage of these horses in general.

as for mott, he only plans on two starts because he's got the money. i don't buy that it's best for the horse. best for the horse to have a minimum two losses i guess.
i don't think it's best for the sport either. but it seems all the top trainers with the best of the best stock are stuck in this mindset. has nothing to do with training, ability, etc. has to do with protecting the supposed monetary value of a horse, and not wanting to risk a loss.
makes me wonder why it's still called horse 'racing'. i think it stinks, which is no slur on bill mott-but a huge indictment of this sport, which is slowly committing suicide.