Twirling Candy Love....

[Kasept]

I'm bewildered as to Giant Oak suffering by general comparison in the analysis going on here. I'm going to assume that is a function of our complete unfamiliarity with horses staying around until they fully mature these days. There was a time when a horse that reached his peak at 5 or 6 was appreciated simply as a late developer and gleefully welcomed to the handicap ranks.

For those who have never seen one race much past their sophomore year, a horse doesn't reach physical maturity until age 4. It's odd that a horse would run a career best figure in his first start at age 5, (105 Beyer in Giant Oak's case), and be dismissed as fodder in a discussion trying to underwhelm Morning Line's foes.

I don't get it. Everyone bemoans horses taken to the shed too quickly, and yet when one stays around, Beyering 100+ in his last three races run between 9f-10f in traditionally serious Handicap Division races, he's scoffed at as an example of how bad the elder males are currently.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Kasept

I'm bewildered as to Giant Oak suffering by general comparison in the analysis going on here. I'm going to assume that is a function of our complete unfamiliarity with horses staying around until they fully mature these days. There was a time when a horse that reached his peak at 5 or 6 was appreciated simply as a late developer and gleefully welcomed to the handicap ranks.

For those who have never seen one race much past their sophomore year, a horse doesn't reach physical maturity until age 4. It's odd that a horse would run a career best figure in his first start at age 5, (105 Beyer in Giant Oak's case), and be dismissed as fodder in a discussion trying to underwhelm Morning Line's foes.

I don't get it. Everyone bemoans horses taken to the shed too quickly, and yet when one stays around, Beyering 100+ in his last three races run between 9f-10f in traditionally serious Handicap Division races, he's scoffed at as an example of how bad the elder males are currently.

It's probably because his last non DQ win before Saturday was in May of 2009, on the grass.

[RockHardTen1985]

Originally Posted by Kasept

I'm bewildered as to Giant Oak suffering by general comparison in the analysis going on here. I'm going to assume that is a function of our complete unfamiliarity with horses staying around until they fully mature these days. There was a time when a horse that reached his peak at 5 or 6 was appreciated simply as a late developer and gleefully welcomed to the handicap ranks.

For those who have never seen one race much past their sophomore year, a horse doesn't reach physical maturity until age 4. It's odd that a horse would run a career best figure in his first start at age 5, (105 Beyer in Giant Oak's case), and be dismissed as fodder in a discussion trying to underwhelm Morning Line's foes.

I don't get it. Everyone bemoans horses taken to the shed too quickly, and yet when one stays around, Beyering 100+ in his last three races run between 9f-10f in traditionally serious Handicap Division races, he's scoffed at as an example of how bad the elder males are currently.

He might be getting good now, maybe he will be really good. Up to Saturday what had he done to make him any type of a player in this division? At the begining of last year he was just bad. He started the year running 3rd,5th,3rd,6th,4th and 5th in his first 6 races. Then maybe he got a little better, but he hangs badly twice, both times under 2-1 in the betting. Im not sure what about this horse made him any good coming into Saturday. Maybe now we can say he is OK because he won the Donn.
Not to mention his last win was about 2 years ago on grass.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Kasept

I'm bewildered as to Giant Oak suffering by general comparison in the analysis going on here. I'm going to assume that is a function of our complete unfamiliarity with horses staying around until they fully mature these days. There was a time when a horse that reached his peak at 5 or 6 was appreciated simply as a late developer and gleefully welcomed to the handicap ranks.

For those who have never seen one race much past their sophomore year, a horse doesn't reach physical maturity until age 4. It's odd that a horse would run a career best figure in his first start at age 5, (105 Beyer in Giant Oak's case), and be dismissed as fodder in a discussion trying to underwhelm Morning Line's foes.

I don't get it. Everyone bemoans horses taken to the shed too quickly, and yet when one stays around, Beyering 100+ in his last three races run between 9f-10f in traditionally serious Handicap Division races, he's scoffed at as an example of how bad the elder males are currently.

Nice generalization horses get better with age? Giant Oaks a bum and needs the 4 horses on the lead to ding dong to suck on by. I am surprised at you Giant Oak? Tell me how many Pletcherized 3 year olds have come off the Derby trail to be Handicap animals? Should we expect I Want Revenge to season with age? What do you make of the 38 sec last 3f's?

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Nice generalization horses get better with age? Giant Oaks a bum and needs the 4 horses on the lead to ding dong to suck on by. I am surprised at you Giant Oak? Tell me how many Pletcherized 3 year olds have come off the Derby trail to be Handicap animals? Should we expect I Want Revenge to season with age? What do you make of the 38 sec last 3f's?

You're doing the generalizing by infering that I suggested every horse will 'get better with age'. I said 'horses reach maturity at age 4'. That's just a fact. And you're answering you're own retort or question in regards to Pletcherized 3yo's... Different owners and barns have different goals. Horses that are wrung out early are not going to 'get better with age'. They're going to disappear. But a horse like Giant Oak that has been well managed and allowed to fully develop can be in position to capitalize at the point when he's at his best. He just ran his BEST race in career start #24, but he's a bum. Why? Because it took until fall of his 4yo year for him to get close to being a complete racehorse?

As to the pace, Giant Oak went his final 3f in sub :37.0 (:36.3). Are Block and Bridgmo supposed to apologize because there was a serious pace in the race? It was the Donn Handicap. It's the kind of race that is supposed to have an honest pace. Everybody runs their race and the dust settles where it settles. Fly Down and Ron the Greek got that same pace set up and couldn't get closer to the three collapsing leaders than 4.5 and 8.5 lengths respectively. Giant Oak ran a very nice race against a very nice group. Instead of being judged on earlier career shortcomings, he deserves to be judged on what appears to be the current, more complete version, of what he is as a racehorse.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Kasept

You're doing the generalizing by infering that I suggested every horse will 'get better with age'. I said 'horses reach maturity at age 4'. That's just a fact. And you're answering you're own retort or question in regards to Pletcherized 3yo's... Different owners and barns have different goals. Horses that are wrung out early are not going to 'get better with age'. They're going to disappear. But a horse like Giant Oak that has been well managed and allowed to fully develop can be in position to capitalize at the point when he's at his best. He just ran his BEST race in career start #24, but he's a bum. Why? Because it took until fall of his 4yo year for him to get close to being a complete racehorse?

As to the pace, Giant Oak went his final 3f in sub :37.0 (:36.3). Are Block and Bridgmo supposed to apologize because there was a serious pace in the race? It was the Donn Handicap. It's the kind of race that is supposed to have an honest pace. Everybody runs their race and the dust settles where it settles. Fly Down and Ron the Greek got that same pace set up and couldn't get closer to the three collapsing leaders than 4.5 and 8.5 lengths respectively. Giant Oak ran a very nice race against a very nice group. Instead of being judged on earlier career shortcomings, he deserves to be judged on what appears to be the current, more complete version, of what he is as a racehorse.

19 straight losses until the Clark including Illnois bred stakes. I am not a believer

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Kasept

I'm bewildered as to Giant Oak suffering by general comparison in the analysis going on here. I'm going to assume that is a function of our complete unfamiliarity with horses staying around until they fully mature these days. There was a time when a horse that reached his peak at 5 or 6 was appreciated simply as a late developer and gleefully welcomed to the handicap ranks.

For those who have never seen one race much past their sophomore year, a horse doesn't reach physical maturity until age 4. It's odd that a horse would run a career best figure in his first start at age 5, (105 Beyer in Giant Oak's case), and be dismissed as fodder in a discussion trying to underwhelm Morning Line's foes.

I don't get it. Everyone bemoans horses taken to the shed too quickly, and yet when one stays around, Beyering 100+ in his last three races run between 9f-10f in traditionally serious Handicap Division races, he's scoffed at as an example of how bad the elder males are currently.

You must spend enough time on here to know that all horses are slow and nobody is any good at all. Even the ridiculously fast horses from the last ten years are often mocked for only beating that crops bad horses. There is no positivity whatsoever. Damn shame too, this is one fun sport.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

You must spend enough time on here to know that all horses are slow and nobody is any good at all. Even the ridiculously fast horses from the last ten years are often mocked for only beating that crops bad horses. There is no positivity whatsoever. Damn shame too, this is one fun sport.

Solid contribution. Thanks.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

You must spend enough time on here to know that all horses are slow and nobody is any good at all. Even the ridiculously fast horses from the last ten years are often mocked for only beating that crops bad horses. There is no positivity whatsoever. Damn shame too, this is one fun sport.

Yep hated Zenyatta, QR, Rachel, goldikova, Zarkava. Uncle Mo etc etc. Go away this isn't for you. Hoss, Byk, Rollo etc. can handle it from here

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Yep hated Zenyatta, QR, Rachel, goldikova, Zarkava. Uncle Mo etc etc. Go away this isn't for you. Hoss, Byk, Rollo etc. can handle it from here

You would not have to look far to find hating for each of the aforementioned except maybe Zarkava.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

You would not have to look far to find hating for each of the aforementioned except maybe Zarkava.

It's not hating. Only on message boards is discussing things considered hating.

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

You must spend enough time on here to know that all horses are slow and nobody is any good at all. Even the ridiculously fast horses from the last ten years are often mocked for only beating that crops bad horses. There is no positivity whatsoever. Damn shame too, this is one fun sport.

[RockHardTen1985]

More love for TC....This was inevitable after the first blog post.


http://www.drf.com/news/watchmaker-w...sional-ratings