The 3-year-old males

[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.

[Betsy]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Betsy]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.

I think it's more like trainers are afraid of being past their peak by the time the Derby comes around - I can't blame them for that. I agree in general that horses need to race more, but I don't have a problem with 2 preps for the Derby. There's more to racing than the Derby or the Triple Crown. In terms of THAS, he's clearly going to run as a 4 year old so he won't be retiring anytime soon due to anything other than illness or injury. How would you prefer his schedule to have gone? Run in the Holy Bull, FOY and then FLA Derby?

[RockHardTen1985]

Originally Posted by Betsy

I think it's more like trainers are afraid of being past their peak by the time the Derby comes around - I can't blame them for that. I agree in general that horses need to race more, but I don't have a problem with 2 preps for the Derby. There's more to racing than the Derby or the Triple Crown. In terms of THAS, he's clearly going to run as a 4 year old so he won't be retiring anytime soon due to anything other than illness or injury. How would you prefer his schedule to have gone? Run in the Holy Bull, FOY and then FLA Derby?

I agree with you as far as THAS. He already has rolled going 9f, and as a 2yr old he has been more then fast enough. Its Motts job to keep him moving forward, and have him ready. Its different with all horses, but a fast horse who already has won going 9f, I have no problem with 2 preps. I got him as the horse to beat, and I cant wait for him to run back.

[King Glorious]

I've always said that if you don't go into the Derby with the intention of winning it, you shouldn't go at all. If you do go planning on winning it, the next step is obviously the Preakness. The point is, if you aren't preparing your horse for the entire series, you are asking for trouble. How can you expect a horse that's conditioned to run once every 6-8 weeks to be ready to run three times in six weeks? You can't.

As for the hype of the horses, I think it's really a case of people are looking for hope where maybe it's not really there. But this is what the sport has left us with. Horses don't run enough anymore for us to properly evaluate actual talent and ability against other top horses so all we can do is watch a good horse beat mediocres and pin our hopes on them as future stars. I think back to my first year as a fan, 1986. We had Java Gold, Polish Navy, Gulch, Capote, Bet Twice, Talinum, Temperate Sil, Demons Begone, Qualify, Alysheba...the list goes on.....and they were competing against each other regularly as 2yos and on the TC trail as 3yos. We KNEW who the top horses were. Yearly, that was the case. It wasn't like now where it's mostly speculating and guessing.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Betsy

I think it's more like trainers are afraid of being past their peak by the time the Derby comes around - I can't blame them for that. I agree in general that horses need to race more, but I don't have a problem with 2 preps for the Derby. There's more to racing than the Derby or the Triple Crown. In terms of THAS, he's clearly going to run as a 4 year old so he won't be retiring anytime soon due to anything other than illness or injury. How would you prefer his schedule to have gone? Run in the Holy Bull, FOY and then FLA Derby?

how do you reconcile the two? if you think horses should race more, that there's more to racing than the classics, how can you then defend someone not racing because they only have the derby in their sights?
besides, you've got rht agreeing with you. that ought to tell you you're on the wrong track.

seems like this discussion rolls around every year. horses who haven't race at three are on peoples radar as being the ones to beat, when they've yet to show a thing as a 3 yo. newcomers are dismissed, and fairly often they're the ones to watch.