Discreet Cat's Beyer was a 115

[philcski]

Originally Posted by oracle80

Eric I agree, and on this whole thread or any other thread I have yet to see anyone put down this horse or his performance. In fact all have praised it, in varying forms or degrees of excitement.
I was told I was "talking down" to people when I asked if I was the only one who had seen the undercard. Nonsense. I simply couldn't believe the gushing over the raw time and honestly felt like people must not have seen the undercard and realized how fast the track was playing.
That doesn't mean I didn't appreciate the effort, or the horse. But a few folks jumped the gun on the raw time in their excitement over the horse, and I think all times or races have to be viewed in the proper context.
When Bark Dust and Mister Supremo go 7F in 1:21:4 on the same card and track, any references to time, short of a shattering of a track record to me become a small issue.
Different people view races and horses in different ways, exactly as you suggest.
To me, Premium's Tap effort was just as worthy of praise. Running back on short rest off a big race he not only toyed with the field, but did so in a manner that would suggest a huge breakthrough race and that he is really in incredible shape and form. The fact that he didn't tie a track record on a track that wasn't playing that fast doesn't get him as much hype as DC's race did due to the raw time. I'm not saying it was a better effort, but certainly in the same league and was worthy of more hype than it got.
Thor's Echo's race was also awesme and will get a HUGE fig on a track that was playing pretty slow on the undercard.

But Thor's Echo sucks, he only raced 3 lengths off the rail in the BC. He couldn't have won otherwise! It was the rail, damn it! I demand a recount!

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by philcski

But Thor's Echo sucks, he only raced 3 lengths off the rail in the BC. He couldn't have won otherwise! It was the rail, damn it! I demand a recount!

Yes, Phil, and don't forget that Thor's Echo actually bounced in the BC. It was only the (very wide) rail bias that, like a luge run, rocketed him to that win, overcoming not only the other "better" horses, but the inevitable bounce, too. ;>)

--Dunbar

[Linny]

As a fan, there are certain horses I like or follow more closely than others. Some are top stakes horses, others are the Spooky Mulders of the world. Fans tend to get very emotional, defensive and almost irrational about their favorites.
on the other hand, I work in the industry and handicap almost daily. I do everthing from $8k maiden claimers at PHA to the Classic and cannot let emotion decide where I go. Blackthroatedwind makes a lot of great points. We are so desperate for a good one to come along that we crown superstars before their time.
I was impressed with DC on Sat, he looked very good. However, I think it's fair to say that when Go Fernando Go (who??!!) wins a NYB NW1x in 1:22.22 and 2yo maidens fo 1:36.65 and Bark Dust (who indeed??!!!) goes 1:21.83 we can guess that the track is "sharp." I like Nobiz but since 1986 only 3 horses have won the Remsen in under 1:50 (Rockport Harbor and Comeonmom) so I think it's fair to assume that his final time of 1:48.82 was "assisted" by the surface condidion.

Originally Posted by Linny

As a fan, there are certain horses I like or follow more closely than others. Some are top stakes horses, others are the Spooky Mulders of the world. Fans tend to get very emotional, defensive and almost irrational about their favorites.
on the other hand, I work in the industry and handicap almost daily. I do everthing from $8k maiden claimers at PHA to the Classic and cannot let emotion decide where I go. Blackthroatedwind makes a lot of great points. We are so desperate for a good one to come along that we crown superstars before their time.
I was impressed with DC on Sat, he looked very good. However, I think it's fair to say that when Go Fernando Go (who??!!) wins a NYB NW1x in 1:22.22 and 2yo maidens fo 1:36.65 and Bark Dust (who indeed??!!!) goes 1:21.83 we can guess that the track is "sharp." I like Nobiz but since 1986 only 3 horses have won the Remsen in under 1:50 (Rockport Harbor and Comeonmom) so I think it's fair to assume that his final time of 1:48.82 was "assisted" by the surface condidion.

I'm a little offended here, I made those points and got accused of being a hater on Saturday night.
Bark Dust's time had me talking to myself, imagine singling him on the back end of a pik-3 against a bad field of allowance horses in a 5 1/2f race at the Meadowlands and getting beat by a Charles Town shipper and then tossing him out of pik-3's based on that dreadful no excuse performance and watching him wire a field in 1:21:4? That triggered a profanity fest that had to be heard to be truly appreciated.

[Linny]

I guess that since I'm widely known in cyberspace as a "hater" that it's simply redundant to call me out on it here. On any racing board, anyplace on Earth if you apply logic you are by definition a hater. Logic may be used (but only with caution) on the "handicapping/selections" page of this and other boards.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Linny

I guess that since I'm widely known in cyberspace as a "hater" that it's simply redundant to call me out on it here. On any racing board, anyplace on Earth if you apply logic you are by definition a hater. Logic may be used (but only with caution) on the "handicapping/selections" page of this and other boards.

I've noticed the same thing, LOGIC = HATER.

Or if I express an opinion that I don't believe a certain horse is quite as good as he is being built up to be, that gets somehow translated to mean I think said horse is a "Rat" or a "Pig". Huh?

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

I've noticed the same thing, LOGIC = HATER.

Or if I express an opinion that I don't believe a certain horse is quite as good as he is being built up to be, that gets somehow translated to mean I think said horse is a "Rat" or a "Pig". Huh?

Jim I'm gonna take a guess that you are over 30.
Part of the problem I have with conversing about the context of how good a horse is or may be with anyone under 30 these days is that they lack the perspective that we have. Its certainly not their fault that they were watching Sesame Street when we were watching races in the 80's(thats as far back as I go) and early 90's.
Its just that all these very small fields in dirt gade ones most of the time have rendered "races" into the "performances" category as Steve so aptly described them.
We don't get SS-EG battles or big fields like we used to get and matchups throughout the year. Some of the younger folks in the crowd may find this hard to believe, but horses used to meet each other more than once a year at the highest level and the fields were larger and that meant traffic trouble and obstacles to overcome. I kinda laugh when I talk to some these days who tell me what an awful trip a horse had because he had to steady one time, or that "the jockey moved too soon, or too late".
I suppose with the small fields you get in the big ones now that steadying one time or a slighty premature move may indeed seem like a tragedy. But in the good ole days horses most often had to overcome trips and traffic in races and it made winning consistently at the highest level a very hard task. If you didn't get beat because one of the other good ones you met 2-4 times a year was better that day, you could get beat because of traffic.
Winning streaks used to really define a grade one horse as very good, now they play dodgeball all year and a bad trip is steadying one time or not getting the exact setup you needed during a race.
There's no way to get someone younger to get the perspective that someone older has from remembering racing as it once was. They can read about it all they want, but just reading about something rather than actually experiencing it won't ususally give someone the perspective.
And so it goes and will continue to go. The only perspective that younger fans have is that of which they know, and over recent years thats meant more long winning streaks in small fields where main rivals duck each other all year long. To older fans, its gonna be hard for most of todays proclaimed "superhorses" to come close to measuring up to the days of yesterday.
Its not gonna change, and I expect the conflict over how good these horses are to continue for quite some time. It will continue until the last of the racing fans who remembers racing before the Breeders Cup took over as the pinnacle of the racing year dies off.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by oracle80

Jim I'm gonna take a guess that you are over 30.
Part of the problem I have with conversing about the context of how good a horse is or may be with anyone under 30 these days is that they lack the perspective that we have. Its certainly not their fault that they were watching Sesame Street when we were watching races in the 80's(thats as far back as I go) and early 90's.
Its just that all these very small fields in dirt gade ones most of the time have rendered "races" into the "performances" category as Steve so aptly described them.
We don't get SS-EG battles or big fields like we used to get and matchups throughout the year. Some of the younger folks in the crowd may find this hard to believe, but horses used to meet each other more than once a year at the highest level and the fields were larger and that meant traffic trouble and obstacles to overcome. I kinda laugh when I talk to some these days who tell me what an awful trip a horse had because he had to steady one time, or that "the jockey moved too soon, or too late".
I suppose with the small fields you get in the big ones now that steadying one time or a slighty premature move may indeed seem like a tragedy. But in the good ole days horses most often had to overcome trips and traffic in races and it made winning consistently at the highest level a very hard task. If you didn't get beat because one of the other good ones you met 2-4 times a year was better that day, you could get beat because of traffic.
Winning streaks used to really define a grade one horse as very good, now they play dodgeball all year and a bad trip is steadying one time or not getting the exact setup you needed during a race.
There's no way to get someone younger to get the perspective that someone older has from remembering racing as it once was. They can read about it all they want, but just reading about something rather than actually experiencing it won't ususally give someone the perspective.
And so it goes and will continue to go. The only perspective that younger fans have is that of which they know, and over recent years thats meant more long winning streaks in small fields where main rivals duck each other all year long. To older fans, its gonna be hard for most of todays proclaimed "superhorses" to come close to measuring up to the days of yesterday.
Its not gonna change, and I expect the conflict over how good these horses are to continue for quite some time. It will continue until the last of the racing fans who remembers racing before the Breeders Cup took over as the pinnacle of the racing year dies off.

Uh yeah, over thirty, BARELY. <cough, cough>

your comments are right on and funny. I agree, the times required the horses to have a real hard-knocking quality back then.

Thats why I respect the campaign that they have taken with Ouija Board this year. She has danced all the tough dances not ducking anyone male or female, and traveled the world the as well. To me, to some extent, she is kinda emblematic of racings past. Have they ever used an excuse for her?

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

Uh yeah, over thirty, BARELY. <cough, cough>

your comments are right on and funny. I agree, the times required the horses to have a real hard-knocking quality back then.

Thats why I respect the campaign that they have taken with Ouija Board this year. She has danced all the tough dances not ducking anyone male or female, and traveled the world the as well. To me, to some extent, she is kinda emblematic of racings past. Have they ever used an excuse for her?

Oujia Board is the greatest!! What a hard knocking gutsy mare, she dances all the dances and fights like hell, win or lose.

I've seen so many horses who were the next wonderhorse, until they got eyeballed that is!! Most people don't realize this but horses are herd animals by nature and instinct, and its the rare ones who actually wanna lead and fight.
I will never label a horse as great until he or she passes a look in the eye test and goes on.
To me that was the most impressive part of Discreet Cat's race, not the raw time.
He got eyeballed in the lane and said "yes I can" and took off.
All the really good ones became emboldened by challenges and fought like hell to get to the wire first, even when they didn't get their first they tried like hell to do so.
I can think of a few horses I've watched who posessed great talent but obviously didn't care if they got there first or not. Their talent carried them home sometimes, but they just didn't care if they passed or not.
I'd put Empire Maker in that category and I believe Bailey himself once said he had a common streak.

[blackthroatedwind]

Formal Gold is one of the few " next wonderhorses " I remember that actually panned out though it took a little time. I think his Beyer number in his debut, as a 3YO, was one of the highest ever for a debut ( it was either close to meadowlake or beat him ). I remember him running at Belmont for his second start.

For the most part these future superstars either get injured and hardly run or fail over time.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Formal Gold is one of the few " next wonderhorses " I remember that actually panned out though it took a little time. I think his Beyer number in his debut, as a 3YO, was one of the highest ever for a debut ( it was either close to meadowlake or beat him ). I remember him running at Belmont for his second start.

For the most part these future superstars either get injured and hardly run or fail over time.

You know, I am VERY guilty of not mentioning this horse as one of the most underrated horses ever.
I myself sometimes fall into the trap of dismissing greatness once they go t9o stud and basically fail to hit what they were expected to achieve.
That year when Formal Gold was slugging it out, and winning, vs Skip Aaway and several other very good horses(Skip Away was great), he was incredible.
He went into a 3 month form cycle where very few horses in HISTORY could have beaten him.
Hes overlooked.

[cakes44]

I hate to say it Oracle, but you do have Ghostzapper in your avatar and sig line. He didn't exactly dance all the dances.

[SentToStud]

great, greater, greatest....

Forego runs down Honest Pleasure in the '76 Marlboro while giving him 18 pounds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWeWHgHivWk

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Formal Gold is one of the few " next wonderhorses " I remember that actually panned out though it took a little time. I think his Beyer number in his debut, as a 3YO, was one of the highest ever for a debut ( it was either close to meadowlake or beat him ). I remember him running at Belmont for his second start.

For the most part these future superstars either get injured and hardly run or fail over time.

I'm guilty of forgetting about Formal Gold. I was reminded last night when somebody posted old beyers, my jaw dropped when looking at Formal Gold's numbers.

Originally Posted by cakes44

I hate to say it Oracle, but you do have Ghostzapper in your avatar and sig line. He didn't exactly dance all the dances.

Say what? What is it you are trying to say?
He had a layoff necessitated by injury in his three year old year, then ran in allowances, the Kings Bishop, and blew away Elders in the Vosburgh.
He was unsound enough that he almost didn't run at age 4.
Once he did run, danced in 4 races in 4 months and passed the eyeball check in the Woodward, and than put on a dazzling display in the BCC that left no doubt as to what he was.
He then returned at age 5, and off a long layoff ran one of the best figure wise Met Miles ever with ease.
He wasn't ducking anyone, his physical problems necessitated that he have the layoffs he did have.
There is a big differnce between ducking horses and making sure one still has all 4 legs working.
Sorry, but his BCC, Woodward, Met Mile, and Vosburgh were all spectacular.

[Linny]

Originally Posted by oracle80

Sorry, but his BCC, Woodward, Met Mile, and Vosburgh were all spectacular.

Too bad they were between his 3yo season and his 5yo season. My question is this: Did you or anyone else think, when he debuted at 4 in the Tom Fool that he was a HOY candidate? Or was it the stellar win over 3 allowance horses in the Iselin slop that sealed the greatness?
His "great races" were intermittant. When he was good he was very good.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by cakes44

I hate to say it Oracle, but you do have Ghostzapper in your avatar and sig line. He didn't exactly dance all the dances.

Thank you.

Wait, are you over 30? I'm not sure if I can agree with that statement unless you were hanging out with Mike at the OTB while I was watching Sesame Street.

Originally Posted by Linny

Too bad they were between his 3yo season and his 5yo season. My question is this: Did you or anyone else think, when he debuted at 4 in the Tom Fool that he was a HOY candidate? Or was it the stellar win over 3 allowance horses in the Iselin slop that sealed the greatness?
His "great races" were intermittant. When he was good he was very good.

Actually I and many others thought he was a HOY candidate for 2004 after he destroyed that field in the Vosburgh in 2003 with one of the greatest moves you will ever see.
His Tom Fool was excellent, and his Iselin fit the spacing of what he was trying to do and certainly was never claimed by anyone to be one of his career highlights.
His Woodward against next year's HOY St Liam was an incredible display of courage and speed and fight, and his BCC was just mindblowing.
His Met Mile was extraordinary, and since it was off a long layoff with no prep, it was just an incredible display of sheer raw talent.
He lost two races in his life, one when he hurt his foot and had to be layed off, and one where he flew home to be narrowly beaten agaisnt one of the most powerful inside speed biases you will ever see at the racetrack.
He won at 2,3,4, and 5, many different distances, and many different tracks.

I really didn't need to see him run another ten races to know how good he was, none of his contemporarues were gonna beat him anyway.
He had true class, the ability to fly home from dead last or stalk or go straight to lead or rip out their hearts with a turn move. There wasn't anything he couldn't do.

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Thank you.

Wait, are you over 30? I'm not sure if I can agree with that statement unless you were hanging out with Mike at the OTB while I was watching Sesame Street.

Why did I guess that only you would react that way to that statement?
You really illustrate again what I'm talking about.
It wasn't a knock as to the intelligence of or knowledge of younger race fans that I was alluding to. Its something you will get someday, its called perpective.
Look, its like this: I have read all about the great depression and the effects it had on America and how people suffered. But no matter how much I read and research, I'm never gonna understand it like people who lived through it.
You just can't convey all the nuances and details in a book, you hadda be there.
I actually think guys like you and Randall would jizz in your jeans if you guys could have experienced racing in the 80's, if I had soome of the old Racing Forms I saved for years and years that were in my parents basement until they moved in 1994 and they got thrown out I would send them to you.
The grade ones used to have large and contested fields and we had rivalries.
Thats what I'm trying to say.
Guys tell me all the time about the 60's and 70's with Kelso, Affirmed, Dr Fager, Kelso, Forego, Seattle Slew, Alydar and Affirmed., Spectacular Bid, Secretariat, Buckpasser, etc.
When Secretariat ran I was watching Sesame Street!!!!!!
I've read about all those horses, and appreciate what I've read, but the guys who saw them REALLY know those horses, and their opinion on them is always gonna be better than mine, and their definition of great is always gonna be different than mine as well.
Someday, you will be talking like this to younger folks yourself.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Linny

Too bad they were between his 3yo season and his 5yo season. My question is this: Did you or anyone else think, when he debuted at 4 in the Tom Fool that he was a HOY candidate? Or was it the stellar win over 3 allowance horses in the Iselin slop that sealed the greatness?
His "great races" were intermittant. When he was good he was very good.

Actually I did, and said as such.

And he didn't disappoint me.

You know why only 3 showed up in the Iselin? Because they were AFRAID! And all he did was run a ridiculously fast race in which nobody in the world would have beaten him in. So those that stayed away made the right decision.