Officially Crap

[philcski]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Yeah, that'll happen. She's the one that missed either the Spinaway or Matron with a " small problem " and went into the Bermuda Triangle.

At least she's not alone in there.

I believe it's known as the Pletcher Triangle these days...

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by philcski

I believe it's known as the Pletcher Triangle these days...

Why not....he's taken over everything else.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

The same old Churchill Shills.......They are 2 year old fillies trying to keep up with a horse going 44'3.That is gunna make for a slow 7f time.It is simply an awkward distance for them. Sure some other 2 year old filly ran a 124'3 in an earlier race,but it was a more relaxed 45'4,and 1:11'2 that enabled her to get it.She will do more damage to shut the shill's trap.She will get top 3 checks in grade 1 races,and you will still call her slow.The winner of the Kentucky Oaks can be called slow(I guess,) but she somehow was the winner.Giacomo won 2.55 million being "slow." Times don't tell you how the battle was fought.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

The same old Churchill Shills.......They are 2 year old fillies trying to keep up with a horse going 44'3.That is gunna make for a slow 7f time.It is simply an awkward distance for them. Sure some other 2 year old filly ran a 124'3 in an earlier race,but it was a more relaxed 45'4,and 1:11'2 that enabled her to get it.She will do more damage to shut the shill's trap.She will get top 3 checks in grade 1 races,and you will still call her slow.The winner of the Kentucky Oaks can be called slow(I guess,) but she somehow was the winner.Giacomo won 2.55 million being "slow." Times don't tell you how the battle was fought.

In this particular case, the times tell everything, and Quick Little Miss was the beneficiary of a fast pace that collapsed AND a slow final time. Had she set the pace at least one could say she still hung on after settng a grueling pace. The fact that she merely sucked up into a collapsing one, especially considering the final time, is hardly encouraging.

The very cheap horses that ran the similar final time earlier ran a slower pace because they are bad horses. The best explanation ultimately for the slow final time of the stake would be that, relatively speaking, these are poor horses.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

In this particular case, the times tell everything, and Quick Little Miss was the beneficiary of a fast pace that collapsed AND a slow final time. Had she set the pace at least one could say she still hung on after settng a grueling pace. The fact that she merely sucked up into a collapsing one, especially considering the final time, is hardly encouraging.

The very cheap horses that ran the similar final time earlier ran a slower pace because they are bad horses. The best explanation ultimately for the slow final time of the stake would be that, relatively speaking, these are poor horses.

Following that logic,then the horses who ran in the Kentucky Oaks last year are poor horses.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Following that logic,then the horses who ran in the Kentucky Oaks last year are poor horses.

They're not? Who came out of that race and did anything other than Wait a While?

I agree about Quick Little Miss that she'll get some checks, and that the track on BC day was nonsense, but you have to be honest, that time was pretty slow.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Following that logic,then the horses who ran in the Kentucky Oaks last year are poor horses.

Not many of them are very good. Bushfire is OK, but she was also the only one who ran a strong race in the KY Oaks. Lemons Forever? She aint much. I think that's been well established.

Ya know, the name of the race doesn't make the horses in it good.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

They're not? Who came out of that race and did anything other than Wait a While?

I agree about Quick Little Miss that she'll get some checks, and that the track on BC day was nonsense, but you have to be honest, that time was pretty slow.

It doesn't bother me(the time.)She is working bullets over at Anita.She is one of the few to win over here without a work over the surface.She does it on just 2 weeks rest. Point Ashley took 13 '4 to cover the last 8th of a mile in the Del Mar Debutante. This filly is a hunter,and they are target based individuals. They find the wire at the right time,and get paid.She has won 2 stakes,and came 3rd in a Grade 1 that was almost impossible to close in.She has made 164k,and when Mel Stute watches her work faster than any other horse that morning,I don't think he thinks about how slow this filly is.He is thinking that this is most likely his last good horse.Look at all those stakes races coming up for 3 year old fillys.If this slow filly stays healthy,she will make 500k-1 mil in the next 9 months.Best I can remember,the filly who ran 2nd in the B.C. juve this year ran about a 1:19 at TOGA.I thought that was too slow,but that funny lookin' gray filly is doing pretty good.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

They're not? Who came out of that race and did anything other than Wait a While?

I agree about Quick Little Miss that she'll get some checks, and that the track on BC day was nonsense, but you have to be honest, that time was pretty slow.

The horse Mike picked out won a nice race at Belmont.I think you guys have picked the wrong division to worry about times with.In general,young fillies are pretty slow,and especially slow in elongated sprints.

[eajinabi]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Quick Little Miss(my and Beyer's pick for the Juve Fillies) just won the Moccasin.I told everybody that her race at Fairplex was to die for.I also told you that Anita was speed biased when she ran 3rd to Cash whatever.Filly is for real.Churchill track was officially crap on B.C. DAY,and this is only the 1st of many that will show you just that.

Yeah Scuds I remember you touting her before the Juvie Fillies. Good Call.
I had supported her nicely in the juvie fillies also but the track was not favoring to her that day. I really felt she was the live lonshot in that race at CD. Mel Stute thought high enough of her to send her back after only 2 weeks rest and she scores at 6-1. I like the way she weaved through horses today. Great sign of maturity.

Also, Yesterday another Mel Stute Horse in the Prevue ran good too (High Austin). I have this horse on my watch list. I believe next out he may have him sit far back and make one big run. Maybe.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by eajinabi

Yeah Scuds I remember you touting her before the Juvie Fillies. Good Call.
I had supported her nicely in the juvie fillies also but the track was not favoring to her that day. I really felt she was the live lonshot in that race at CD. Mel Stute thought high enough of her to send her back after only 2 weeks rest and she scores at 6-1. I like the way she weaved through horses today. Great sign of maturity.

Also, Yesterday another Mel Stute Horse in the Prevue ran good too (High Austin). I have this horse on my watch list. I believe next out he may have him sit far back and make one big run. Maybe.

Well,the track record for this new surface is 121 4/5.It used to be 119 4/5.I would expect it to maybe go down a full second when top sprinters run(120 4/5.) About a full second slower than the old dirt surface. You have to ask yourself whether you think that Prevue stakes was a good one.I think it was.It was run in 122.42..Last year Your Tent or Mine ran it 1.42 seconds quicker,and in 2004 Declans Moon's time was .68 seconds quicker than Belgravia's effort was.So,if you think Belgravia's effort was as good as Declan's Moon,then this Cushion track is .68 seconds slower than the old surface.If you think Belgravia's performance was equal to Your Tent or Mine's performance,then this surface is 1.42 seconds slower than the old surface.If you take an average of the 2,it would be 1 second slower.So, the girls ran a 124.13 today on this cushion track.That would be anywhere from a 123.45 to as low as a 122.71 on the old track that people are use to judging West Coast Times by.If you think the track is 1 second slower,then the girls ran an equivalent of a 123.13 in the Moccasin. No Bull Baby won the Moccasin in 2004 by running a 123.06,and last year,Private World ran a 122 1/5 in the Moccasin.These times were both about 1.3 seconds lower than their male counterparts.QLM ran 1.71 seconds slower than Belgravia.So,the boys ran about .4 seconds quicker than the normal 1.30 seconds that they beat the female counterparts by.You can blame that on QLM,or give credit to Belgravia,or a little both.The fact is that this 1:24 for 7f is not the normal West Coast 1:24,because the track is probably a full second slower than it was with the dirt surface.As far as what you are use to seeing,the girls ran about a 1:23.Maybe a little less or more,but the track is somewhere between a half second,and a second and a half slower.Go back and look at the tape.The favorite is slowing down some,but that isn't a death march that would be timed in 1:24 on the old surface.Like I said,As far as the West Coast times you are used to it probably is about a 1:23(or about what No Bull Baby ran.)Not great,but not the maggot slow time that these haters are comfortable pinning on QLM.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Well,the track record for this new surface is 121 4/5.It used to be 119 4/5.I would expect it to maybe go down a full second when top sprinters run(120 4/5.) About a full second slower than the old dirt surface. You have to ask yourself whether you think that Prevue stakes was a good one.I think it was.It was run in 122.42..Last year Your Tent or Mine ran it 1.42 seconds quicker,and in 2004 Declans Moon's time was .68 seconds quicker than Belgravia's effort was.So,if you think Belgravia's effort was as good as Declan's Moon,then this Cushion track is .68 seconds slower than the old surface.If you think Belgravia's performance was equal to Your Tent or Mine's performance,then this surface is 1.42 seconds slower than the old surface.If you take an average of the 2,it would be 1 second slower.So, the girls ran a 124.13 today on this cushion track.That would be anywhere from a 123.45 to as low as a 122.71 on the old track that people are use to judging West Coast Times by.If you think the track is 1 second slower,then the girls ran an equivalent of a 123.13 in the Moccasin. No Bull Baby won the Moccasin in 2004 by running a 123.06,and last year,Private World ran a 122 1/5 in the Moccasin.These times were both about 1.3 seconds lower than their male counterparts.QLM ran 1.71 seconds slower than Belgravia.So,the boys ran about .4 seconds quicker than the normal 1.30 seconds that they beat the female counterparts by.You can blame that on QLM,or give credit to Belgravia,or a little both.The fact is that this 1:24 for 7f is not the normal West Coast 1:24,because the track is probably a full second slower than it was with the dirt surface.As far as what you are use to seeing,the girls ran about a 1:23.Maybe a little less or more,but the track is somewhere between a half second,and a second and a half slower.Go back and look at the tape.The favorite is slowing down some,but that isn't a death march that would be timed in 1:24 on the old surface.Like I said,As far as the West Coast times you are used to it probably is about a 1:23(or about what No Bull Baby ran.)Not great,but not the maggot slow time that these haters are comfortable pinning on QLM.

The point isn't Quick Little Miss against the clock, it's Quick Little Miss against the other seven-furlong races run on Sunday.. Your argument doesn't explain why she ran slower than $32,000 claimers and barely quicker than the bottom-level 2-year-olds..

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

The point isn't Quick Little Miss against the clock, it's Quick Little Miss against the other seven-furlong races run on Sunday.. Your argument doesn't explain why she ran slower than $32,000 claimers and barely quicker than the bottom-level 2-year-olds..

In the 7th race,the 32k claimer you speak of ran 22.50 45.18 109.81 123.23........Nowhere on his past performances do you see him clear on a lead while going 22.50.Nowhere in that form will you see him clear by 2 lengths in a 45.18.Court said he knew he had the speed of the race,and took advantage of it.The other speed in the race(#1 horse) pulled up before he could put a midrace challenge in.Don't get me wrong,Sunday Times ran a hell of a race,but the fact is he usually is hassled on the front,and today he suddenly was clear to relax up front .He ran his best.I have no problem saying he ran what we normally would call a 1:22 out here.Even claimers (and this used to be a 50k claimer,not 32k)can run fast when they get their way,and are trained by Oneil.Older males(even some claimers) can often run faster than 2 year old fillies.Of more importance to me is the 4th race where 2 year old maiden claiming fillies ran 124.67 (as compared to the 124.13 in the Moccasin Stakes.)

..........the stakes 21.73 44.70 110.28 124.13

the maiden claimer 22.37 45.99 1:11.56 1:24.67

When I watch the maiden race,the 1st thing I noticed is that there are 3 horses near the lead.They separate themselves by a half length each(with the race winner calmly sitting in 2nd(half length in front n' behind 1 horse each.)No stress whatsoever here.For whatever reason the horses in 1st n' 3rd fall off the pace as if sht while running a simple 45.99.David Flores now asks his horse (full of run n' cruising alone on the inherited lead) to now run.He of course has plenty of run.They make a run for it,and hold off the favorite at the end.These 2 horses are 6 lengths clear of the others.The relatively slow half mile of about 46 meant these 2 really only had to run 3 f.They jogged the 1st 4 f.Under those conditions,horses can sprint for home pretty fast.Compare that to the high pressure situation that the horses in the Moccasin were under.They ran a very fast half mile for 2 year old fillies.Even the winner ran much faster for 4f than she normally does.So,she wasn't taking it easy back there.She would have been 15 lengths back if this was true.These jocks rode these fillies like they were running 6f(well over a second faster than those 2 maiden claimers did for 6f.) The stakes fillies ran the 1st part of the 7f very fast,and the maiden claimers ran the 2nd part of the 7f fairly quickly(after their initial jog.)Can we agree that it is easier to do it the way the maiden claimers did(4f in 45.99 and 46:1,)and then run home fast? The stakes fillies had a war all the way,and the maiden claimers only had a war trying to get to the wire.Still the stakes fillies beat them by over half a second.The dynamics of the races matter(especially at the 7f distance.)Like I said,the Moccasin was not much slower than it was in previous years(adjusted for the slower track.)The winner ran about what No Bull Baby did in 2004.Did Solis not gas his filly from the gate(as if running a 5 f race?) Hardly the recipe needed to relax and run a good 7f time.The winner didn't relax out of the gate.She showed much more pace than usual.She was certainly not distanced like she has been.I was very surprised to see her show that much run early,but maybe they are trying for that.She would have won much easier if she was the 15 lengths off that she normally would be(from this scorching half mile.)I can see that I will get odds again on her.She will have to burn you one n' all in the Starlit.Game on.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

JOEY,just remember one thing.Look at the race at the top of the stretch. QLM can see this Jump On In draw off.She can easily see this.Listen to Stauffer say "SHE COMES ROLLING OFF THE TOP OF THE TURN...JUMP ON IN IS SUDDENLY 3 LENGTHS IN FRONT." How many 2 year old fillies got the heart to go run down a filly that just drew off in an impressive move? Yea,the favorite got tired late ,but you will see that QLM was trying very hard when it looked like she couldn't catch this horse. This is not the norm.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Following that logic,then the horses who ran in the Kentucky Oaks last year are poor horses.

I have a special place in my heart for Lemons Forever thanks to that victory but I'm also a realist- she's NOT very good and that says even less for those that ran behind her in the Oaks. The good news for her: she was the best finisher in the Distaff of the 3YO's as a nonthreatening 5th.

[Danzig]

on any given day....
lemons forever was on, while the others were off that day. doesn't make her particularly good, or them particularly bad.

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

They're not? Who came out of that race and did anything other than Wait a While?

I agree about Quick Little Miss that she'll get some checks, and that the track on BC day was nonsense, but you have to be honest, that time was pretty slow.

Ateam you gotta be kidding me right?
Did you watch the races this year in that division?
Bushfire came out of the Oaks and won the grade one Acorn and the grade one Mother Goose.
Wonder lady Anne L won the grade one Coaching Club American Oaks defeating Pine Island.
Wiat A while smashed them in an off the turf race and won two grade one's on the Turf.
I'd say any field that produced the winners of 5 subsequent Grade One races in their division is a good field.
I know the Derby sure didn't produce the winners of 5 subsequent grade ones.
As a matter of fact Ateam, I can think of only one race that produced as many subsequent grade one winners this year, the Early Times Turf Classic at CD the say before the Oaks.
Gorella came back and won the big race on Million Day, English Channel came back and won two more grade ones, as did Cacique.
But hey, what do I know?

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

The point isn't Quick Little Miss against the clock, it's Quick Little Miss against the other seven-furlong races run on Sunday.. Your argument doesn't explain why she ran slower than $32,000 claimers and barely quicker than the bottom-level 2-year-olds..

I don't mean to sound like another poster who rails against polytrack vs talent, but......
Look, there isn't any way in the world that Jump On In isn't more talented that Quick Little Miss.
If someone said you had won a lottery, and could have the earnings only(so we can take residual value and pedigree out of the equation) of either Quick Little Miss or Jump On In for the rest of their careers, noone in their right mind is not gonna take Jump On In.

Fact is this race is just another example of what I, and many others, have been railing about in regards to these surfaces. Its not even that soem relish it, its more like some detest them less than others.
They crawled the race, and the winner detested it less than the rest of em did.
If anybody wants to take the winner vs Jump On in at SA in the upcoming meet lemme know, I'll take all the action you wanna throw at me.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by oracle80

Ateam you gotta be kidding me right?
Did you watch the races this year in that division?
Bushfire came out of the Oaks and won the grade one Acorn and the grade one Mother Goose.
Wonder lady Anne L won the grade one Coaching Club American Oaks defeating Pine Island.
Wiat A while smashed them in an off the turf race and won two grade one's on the Turf.
I'd say any field that produced the winners of 5 subsequent Grade One races in their division is a good field.

What a While won on the turf....so her appearance in the KY Oaks is meaningless as far as the overall ability of the race.

Bushfire is a very gutsy horse who is downright slow and has never run a fast number.

Wonder Lady L ran one decent race, in the slop, in winning the CCA Oaks and the rest of her year was so-so ( and certainly had few, if any, " fast " races ).

It is hardly surprising that the KY Oaks contained a number of winners of the big 3YO stakes this year. It is THE race the 3YO fillies point for.

Skewing " results " to fit an argument is easy. I find it hard to believe any knowledgable horseplayer believes this year's KY Oaks field was a strong race.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

What a While won on the turf....so her appearance in the KY Oaks is meaningless as far as the overall ability of the race.

Bushfire is a very gutsy horse who is downright slow and has never run a fast number.

Wonder Lady L ran one decent race, in the slop, in winning the CCA Oaks and the rest of her year was so-so ( and certainly had few, if any, " fast " races ).

It is hardly surprising that the KY Oaks contained a number of winners of the big 3YO stakes this year. It is THE race the 3YO fillies point for.

Skewing " results " to fit an argument is easy. I find it hard to believe any knowledgable horseplayer believes this year's KY Oaks field was a strong race.

Well I mean as far as the division goes, which is all you have to compare it to, it was the strongest race in the division.
Balance got hurt as well in there but she was a fine filly beforehand.
Numbers 2-6 in Watchmakers rankings all ran in the Oaks.
I'm not making an historical comparison to this crop to crops of yesteryear, I'm saying it was the strongest race run this year talent wise in the division. Find me one stronger.