The 3-year-old males

[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]

Originally Posted by Betsy

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.

My feeling on it is that he won't be fit enough. In years past, he would have been at a big disadvantage conditioning wise. He could be the most talented, like Arazi was, but the margin for error is so small that any advantage you give to the others could be enough to cause a loss. However, he's lucky enough to have come along in this new era of less is more. When all of his main competition will be coming in with the same two, at most three starts, he's then not at a disadvantage anymore. For the most part, it's going to be a competition between a bunch of unfit and undertrained horses bred for 8f and the one that lasts the longest and gets the best trip will win.

[Betsy]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

My feeling on it is that he won't be fit enough. In years past, he would have been at a big disadvantage conditioning wise. He could be the most talented, like Arazi was, but the margin for error is so small that any advantage you give to the others could be enough to cause a loss. However, he's lucky enough to have come along in this new era of less is more. When all of his main competition will be coming in with the same two, at most three starts, he's then not at a disadvantage anymore. For the most part, it's going to be a competition between a bunch of unfit and undertrained horses bred for 8f and the one that lasts the longest and gets the best trip will win.

If all the trainers feel that 2 starts is enough, then maybe it is.........times change. Don't you think that 3 starts is pushing it ? Didn't Northern Dancer's trainer (for some reason, I'm totally blanking, but I know him) say "never squeeze the lemon dry"?

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Betsy

If all the trainers feel that 2 starts is enough, then maybe it is.........times change. Don't you think that 3 starts is pushing it ? Didn't Northern Dancer's trainer (for some reason, I'm totally blanking, but I know him) say "never squeeze the lemon dry"?

No, I absolutely don't feel that two starts is enough. I think they should run 6-8 times as 2yos and the Derby should be a fourth start MINIMUM as a 3yo. Times may change but basic principles of conditioning and muscle training remain the same. You have to get your body ready if you are going to ask it to do something. Horses are athletes too and once you reach your peak, you stay in it with activity not inactivity. I think that's why you see a lot of Derby winners come back with really strong Preakness performances in only two weeks, which seems to fly in the face of modern thinking that you need 6-8 weeks to recover from a huge effort. I think that racing is a lot like other sports in that it's a copy-cat game. It worked for one so now everyone wants to do it and then, as I said earlier, they all end up in the same underconditioned boat and then it's no longer a disadvantage to any of them. I bet if a horse ran five preps this year and then won the Derby, next year, you'd see more with three or four as the pendelum would start to swing back again.

[Betsy]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

No, I absolutely don't feel that two starts is enough. I think they should run 6-8 times as 2yos and the Derby should be a fourth start MINIMUM as a 3yo. Times may change but basic principles of conditioning and muscle training remain the same. You have to get your body ready if you are going to ask it to do something. Horses are athletes too and once you reach your peak, you stay in it with activity not inactivity. I think that's why you see a lot of Derby winners come back with really strong Preakness performances in only two weeks, which seems to fly in the face of modern thinking that you need 6-8 weeks to recover from a huge effort. I think that racing is a lot like other sports in that it's a copy-cat game. It worked for one so now everyone wants to do it and then, as I said earlier, they all end up in the same underconditioned boat and then it's no longer a disadvantage to any of them. I bet if a horse ran five preps this year and then won the Derby, next year, you'd see more with three or four as the pendelum would start to swing back again.

That's a good point about the Preakness - can't argue with you there. Well, neither of the consensus top two (top 3 ) horses - Mo, THAS and BOYS ran that much, but then the first two didn't even debut until Saratoga. I can't say that 6-8 starts as a baby is right when for me a lot depends on pedigree. Racing and other sports definitely tend towards copy-catting - not necessarily a good thing as I still see horses as individuals and what works for one won't necessarily work for another. I guess if I think about it, 2 starts to go a grueling 1 1/14 (with all the banging around that goes on) doesn't really toughen a horse. I'm sort of torn on this.