The 3-year-old males

[RockHardTen1985]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Which two?

Big Brown was on a lot of peoples radar. He ran off to a huge turf win at Saratoga at 2. Eskendereya won an off the turf race for fun at 2 and proved he was really a dirt horse. I bet him in the BC Juvy and if that race was on dirt I am sure he would have made some noise. Im pretty sure Smarty ran at 2.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by RockHardTen1985

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

so? i didn't know you were in the media. my point was that we have no top two year olds to discuss right now at 3, since they're all still in the barn; that any horse who runs a good race at any time leading up to may will be in the discussion because a horse can emerge as a contender at any time; that at this point, who won the bcj doesn't mean a whole lot, as it's a whole new year.

[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.

[Danzig]

for starters, bill mott hasn't exactly lit up the derby scene. an awesome trainer, but not one well known for his prowess with getting a 3 yo to churchill. as for limited racing, i think saying trainers deserve benefit of the doubt with only two starts only emboldens trainers to do such things. it seems that it used to be a trainer got brave when he had a good horse, and took on any comer so he could prove it. now, trainers get chicken when they sense a horse has talent. it shouldn't be accepted practice, and people shouldn't just shrug and say trainers know best. the best should be bred to the best to produce the best; hothouse flowers who aren't tried and tested are what we currently see in the shed, and look where it's getting us. this sport needs revamping in a serious way, and there's no better place to start than on the road to the t.c. i think there should be a minimum number of starts requirement as well as getting rid of 2 yo earnings. this race has a huge impact on breeding, it should be limited to horses who deserve a shot to pass on their genes. horses handled with kid gloves due to brittleness or unsoundness need not apply!

[RockHardTen1985]

Originally Posted by Danzig

for starters, bill mott hasn't exactly lit up the derby scene. an awesome trainer, but not one well known for his prowess with getting a 3 yo to churchill. as for limited racing, i think saying trainers deserve benefit of the doubt with only two starts only emboldens trainers to do such things. it seems that it used to be a trainer got brave when he had a good horse, and took on any comer so he could prove it. now, trainers get chicken when they sense a horse has talent. it shouldn't be accepted practice, and people shouldn't just shrug and say trainers know best. the best should be bred to the best to produce the best; hothouse flowers who aren't tried and tested are what we currently see in the shed, and look where it's getting us. this sport needs revamping in a serious way, and there's no better place to start than on the road to the t.c. i think there should be a minimum number of starts requirement as well as getting rid of 2 yo earnings. this race has a huge impact on breeding, it should be limited to horses who deserve a shot to pass on their genes. horses handled with kid gloves due to brittleness or unsoundness need not apply!

Specific races.... People said that about Todd also. Has Mott ever had a really big named horse going in? Im sure he has, Im just drawing a blank.

[Danzig]

my talk about mott was in response to betsy saying she had complete faith in him heading to the derby. i don't care who the trainer is, i don't agree with only two starts for a horse in that amount of time. and they wonder why a horse can't withstand the grueling three races in five weeks; it's because they have no bottom. they aren't tested going in. and if they can't withstand what it takes to run in those races, they have no business being there in the first place. people bemoan the lack of a tc winner in years; well i think a big part of that is the change in training. horses are asked to go too long at two, they have no steady progression in distance at three. they don't run enough early on, they don't get strong enough, and they can't last.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Danzig

my talk about mott was in response to betsy saying she had complete faith in him heading to the derby. i don't care who the trainer is, i don't agree with only two starts for a horse in that amount of time. and they wonder why a horse can't withstand the grueling three races in five weeks; it's because they have no bottom. they aren't tested going in. and if they can't withstand what it takes to run in those races, they have no business being there in the first place. people bemoan the lack of a tc winner in years; well i think a big part of that is the change in training. horses are asked to go too long at two, they have no steady progression in distance at three. they don't run enough early on, they don't get strong enough, and they can't last.

You are making entirely too much sense in this thread.

[DaTruth]

Originally Posted by RockHardTen1985

Specific races.... People said that about Todd also. Has Mott ever had a really big named horse going in? Im sure he has, Im just drawing a blank.

In 1984 Mott had Blue Grass and Louisiana Derby winner Taylor's Special run in the Derby. But that horse, although very good, was a son of Hawkin's Special and had distance limitations. He was essentially turned into a miler/sprinter after his 3yo season ended with a decent 4th in the Preakness.

[Danzig]

http://www.drf.com/news/boys-toscono...rail-sent-farm


bad new for boys at toscanova fans... and is one of the reasons why i cautioned going purely by 2 yo form when choosing your derby fave. we know this stuff happens, where top horses coming into a new season can't get to churchill in may. doesn't ease the sting a bit tho. hopefully they find what's wrong with him, and can bring him back to training. but who knows? that's racing i guess. good luck to 'boys' and maybe they can find him a new trainer in the meantime!!