The 3-year-old males

[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.

[Betsy]

Originally Posted by RockHardTen1985

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.

Yep, there isn't just one way of doing things; what works for one horse won't work for another. I'm sure Mott badly wants to win a Derby, but if he doesn't think running THAS (for instance) more than 2x before hitting KY is the right thing, then I have to believe he's right. I don't think that this horse will lose the Derby because he's not fit enough.

[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.

[Betsy]

Originally Posted by 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.

I understand hope and I don't mean to imply that the horses we've seen recently are not talented or are not capable of being among the best in their crop.......We'll see them run against their more proven counterparts soon enough. The fact is, though, after the TC, you're right they don't run enough anymore - against each other especially. 1986- what a fantastic crop of horses. Gulch was the first horse I followed from beginning to end and I was lucky, I think - he was a pretty special horse

[Pedigree Ann]

Originally Posted by 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.

I couldn't agree more with you. This 'resting' horses after even easy races just gives their bones and muscles time to lose the remodeling that the race gave them. And it seems to have been instituted by the 'sheets guys' analyses. Don't run him back too soon or he'll bounce! They have no training in exercise physiology or anything similar, and they haven't trained a racehorse in the flesh, yet everybody listens to them anyway. Madness. I am a mathematician, holding a doctorate in mathematical statistics, and I can tell you that a complex situation like a racehorse's performance in a race can't be described by a single number.

My first 'Derby' season was 1971 and I had latched onto Jim French, the hickory throwback to an earlier era who seemed to run every 10 days or so. He took part in all 4 parts of the Hialeah Derby series (won the Bahamas but had to give it back) with a couple of placings, then ran in the Bay Shore, Florida Derby, and Santa Anita Derby on consecutive weekends, placing in the first two and winning the last. And since it was then 4 weeks to the Derby, he ran in the Wood Memorial (4th). If that critter Canonero II hadn't shipped in from Venezuela, Jim French would have been the Derby winner, because he was a clear second on the day. None of the US-raced 3yos that year were all that much - except Hoist the Flag, who got hurt early - but they ran against one another all spring. Bold Reason, Executioner, Good Behaving, His Majesty - all nice horses who won good races in their lifetimes, but nothing even Riva Ridge-style special. Nobody was worried about their stud value being diminished by a loss because it wasn't until they had run 8-10 times that any of them HAD any value as a stallion.

[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.

[RockHardTen1985]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.

I have never dismissed a newcomer and in general they never seem dismissed to me. Dunkirk and Curlin come to mind.

[Betsy]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.

But I don't think these horses have only the Derby in their sights - at least, that wasn't what I meant to say. I meant that there is more to racing than the TC and horses should be running more. Instead, racing is a means to an an end: the breeding shed. I mean, was there any reason to retire Bernardini? He's just one example - there are tons of others. It's frustrating - it would be like a great baseball player retiring at, say, 26 - before he even hits his prime.

I'm not trying to dismiss the newcomers - every horse at one point was a newcomer - but they have as much to prove (if not more) than the 2 year olds from last year who haven't run. I think they all have things to prove, but my general theory is that of King Glorious - until those promisng babies from last year show they can't do it, then the newcomers will have to show they can (winning a maiden race or an allowance against bad fields doesn't necessarily tell me anything). Any talented maiden victor could turn into a Curlin or a Bernardini, but they might not.

As to RHT and I agreeing, well maybe I'm naive and I'm putting too much trust in Bill Mott; I genuinely have a lot of faith in the horse. There are many reasons why a horse loses the Derby; is there a recent example of a horse that looked to be the best, but lost because he got exhausted down the lane due to insufficient racing (as opposed to tripping on his pedigree)? Live Oak adores THAS, but they also want this horse to be tested, so my guess is that they would be fine with a fairly strenuous FOY. For a very talented horse that's had it fairly easy, this might be enough for him (as opposed to, say, 3 races) prior to the Derby. Maybe an untested horse just needs to be looked in the eye or asked to do things he's not been asked to do before - and maybe if that happens in a race, you don't need more than 2 races to be successful.