JAZIL'S SISTER! Gr. I Las Virgenes

[Betsy]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

Yes in his mind she should have not only won but also equaled the track record. Only then would she have received his tepid enthusiasm.
Don't worry, this is the guy who told us that Bernardini was going to break Secretariats track record in the BCC and even better, that Invasor was a fraud and would finish off the board. In the Donn last week he said Invasor would be no better than third. To him almost all horses are frauds and pathetic and don't measure up. I really don't know why he is involved in the sport as the only pleasure he seems to take from it is pouring cold water on any people that show any type of excitement.

LOL Well, in my dreams, I had Bernardini breaking the record, too! I think it's pretty obvious that I am love any horse by AP Indy, so of course, I love this filly too. I'm not going to go overboard and proclaim this filly the be all and end all; she may end up being a champion or maybe not, but Rags is going to be fun to watch all the same - she's a pretty little thing. I can't worry about the fractions being what they were because Rags lost several lengths due to how wide she was. It's asking a lot for her to not only go insanely wide throughout the race, but also finish up very fast, especially a filly who has run only 3 times in her career and never against such competition.

King Glorious, I reread my post again and I think I probably sounded more abrupt than I meant. Just because I've read mostly raves doesn't mean that you aren't entitled to your opinion - it's no big deal to disagree.

In any case, I figure RTR will get a lot out of this race; I heard she galloped out reallly well.........I just hope she stays healthy, esp. she had some problems that kept her from racing the remainder of her 2 year old year (her debut was in June).

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Rags to Riches is the most overrated horse in the history of horse racing!

LOL Slot...

[jpops757]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

U do realize that she ran her final two furlongs in 12.64 and 12.85 for a final quarter of 25.49? Running 25.49 final quarters in 8f races is not impressive by most standards. Sure, she ran well to win while very wide but I think it says more for the sub-standard performances of the others than it does for her. It would have been nice to see her running fast at the end and running down some horses that were also going pretty good. But that wasn't the case here. Baroness Thatcher ran second, despite a final quarter of 26.11 and Runway Rosie ran third, despite a final quarter of 26.17 In other words, the leaders didn't prove to hard to catch.

Do you realize this was 3yr old fillies. None of these are ready to chalange Invasor. We get caught up in the 12s and sometimes forget. There is a differance in graded stakes open company restricted to age and or sex. Compare apples to apples. This looked like a very nice field. Lets see how she comes back. I think she has a lotta run bottled up inside. She will be extremely tough for any of the 3yr filles but she isnt any threat to Invasor.

I think that before the year is over, Rags to Riches will compile an impressive record. Perhaps her main competition will be Boca Grande, another daughter of A.P. Indy.

[King Glorious]

We can definitely agree that she's a talented filly and I'll even agree that the sky is the limit for her. What I didn't mean to infer at all was that she wasn't that good. I looked back at her maiden race and was much more impressed with that effort than I was the Las Virgenes. I feel like the circumstances she overcame have been overblown and looked better than they actually were due to what I felt were very inferior performances by the others. What I was basically saying is that had the runner-up and third-place horse been anything at all, Rags' race would be seen as a tough luck third in which she still was the best horse but not have gotten the overwhelming reaction that it has gotten.

I'm sorry that I wasn't impressed with the race. The maiden race did more for me. Some of u people seem to feel that u have to praise everything and that once u like a horse, everything he/she does is golden. Some of u are unable to be objective in your assessments because u have become emotionally invested in the horses. There's nothing wrong with being emotional about them but when it clouds your judgements, that's when u start to lose your perspective. Sometimes, good horses turn in performances that aren't their best yet they still are able to win because they are good horses. Doesn't mean they run their absolute best everytime. Take Invasor's Donn. It wasn't his best or fastest effort. But it was good enough to win. So if I come on here after the race and say that I wasn't impressed (in comparison to some of his other races), am I wrong for saying so? I guess saying that Rags is talented and the sky is the limit for her is still not enough. I suppose I need to have an orgasm everytime she steps on the track in order to safisfy some of u. I"ll keep that in mind for next time.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

We can definitely agree that she's a talented filly and I'll even agree that the sky is the limit for her. What I didn't mean to infer at all was that she wasn't that good. I looked back at her maiden race and was much more impressed with that effort than I was the Las Virgenes. I feel like the circumstances she overcame have been overblown and looked better than they actually were due to what I felt were very inferior performances by the others. What I was basically saying is that had the runner-up and third-place horse been anything at all, Rags' race would be seen as a tough luck third in which she still was the best horse but not have gotten the overwhelming reaction that it has gotten.

I'm sorry that I wasn't impressed with the race. The maiden race did more for me. Some of u people seem to feel that u have to praise everything and that once u like a horse, everything he/she does is golden. Some of u are unable to be objective in your assessments because u have become emotionally invested in the horses. There's nothing wrong with being emotional about them but when it clouds your judgements, that's when u start to lose your perspective. Sometimes, good horses turn in performances that aren't their best yet they still are able to win because they are good horses. Doesn't mean they run their absolute best everytime. Take Invasor's Donn. It wasn't his best or fastest effort. But it was good enough to win. So if I come on here after the race and say that I wasn't impressed (in comparison to some of his other races), am I wrong for saying so? I guess saying that Rags is talented and the sky is the limit for her is still not enough. I suppose I need to have an orgasm everytime she steps on the track in order to safisfy some of u. I"ll keep that in mind for next time.

Please try not to.

[jpops757]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

We can definitely agree that she's a talented filly and I'll even agree that the sky is the limit for her. What I didn't mean to infer at all was that she wasn't that good. I looked back at her maiden race and was much more impressed with that effort than I was the Las Virgenes. I feel like the circumstances she overcame have been overblown and looked better than they actually were due to what I felt were very inferior performances by the others. What I was basically saying is that had the runner-up and third-place horse been anything at all, Rags' race would be seen as a tough luck third in which she still was the best horse but not have gotten the overwhelming reaction that it has gotten.

I'm sorry that I wasn't impressed with the race. The maiden race did more for me. Some of u people seem to feel that u have to praise everything and that once u like a horse, everything he/she does is golden. Some of u are unable to be objective in your assessments because u have become emotionally invested in the horses. There's nothing wrong with being emotional about them but when it clouds your judgements, that's when u start to lose your perspective. Sometimes, good horses turn in performances that aren't their best yet they still are able to win because they are good horses. Doesn't mean they run their absolute best everytime. Take Invasor's Donn. It wasn't his best or fastest effort. But it was good enough to win. So if I come on here after the race and say that I wasn't impressed (in comparison to some of his other races), am I wrong for saying so? I guess saying that Rags is talented and the sky is the limit for her is still not enough. I suppose I need to have an orgasm everytime she steps on the track in order to safisfy some of u. I"ll keep that in mind for next time.

I am not objecting too your opinion. The comparison of times and splits are for 3yr fillies early in the year. These 2 and 3yr olds dont just appear on the scene and run these 12 splits and compete with the older horses for times, Also take into consideration only the 3rd race. The field had several graded winners but yes they were against there age group and no one expected them to threaten Discrete Cat.

Originally Posted by King Glorious

We can definitely agree that she's a talented filly and I'll even agree that the sky is the limit for her. What I didn't mean to infer at all was that she wasn't that good. I looked back at her maiden race and was much more impressed with that effort than I was the Las Virgenes. I feel like the circumstances she overcame have been overblown and looked better than they actually were due to what I felt were very inferior performances by the others. What I was basically saying is that had the runner-up and third-place horse been anything at all, Rags' race would be seen as a tough luck third in which she still was the best horse but not have gotten the overwhelming reaction that it has gotten.

I'm sorry that I wasn't impressed with the race. The maiden race did more for me. Some of u people seem to feel that u have to praise everything and that once u like a horse, everything he/she does is golden. Some of u are unable to be objective in your assessments because u have become emotionally invested in the horses. There's nothing wrong with being emotional about them but when it clouds your judgements, that's when u start to lose your perspective. Sometimes, good horses turn in performances that aren't their best yet they still are able to win because they are good horses. Doesn't mean they run their absolute best everytime. Take Invasor's Donn. It wasn't his best or fastest effort. But it was good enough to win. So if I come on here after the race and say that I wasn't impressed (in comparison to some of his other races), am I wrong for saying so? I guess saying that Rags is talented and the sky is the limit for her is still not enough. I suppose I need to have an orgasm everytime she steps on the track in order to safisfy some of u. I"ll keep that in mind for next time.

I think you are making perfect sense, as usual.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I suppose I need to have an orgasm everytime she steps on the track in order to safisfy some of u. I"ll keep that in mind for next time.

Well... some of us around here have got to.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by jpops757

I am not objecting too your opinion. The comparison of times and splits are for 3yr fillies early in the year. These 2 and 3yr olds dont just appear on the scene and run these 12 splits and compete with the older horses for times, Also take into consideration only the 3rd race. The field had several graded winners but yes they were against there age group and no one expected them to threaten Discrete Cat.

I'm not expecting them to run like the best in the game. Allowances should be given for the fact that they are 3yo fillies and for the fact that it was only her third career start. That's why I understand that she has a lot of room to improve and will likely be even better. My analysis wasn't on how good she is or can be though. It was simply on that one race. I didn't see it as special. The way most of the people described it, u would have thought she was pulling a Silky Sullivan coming down the lane. The truth of the matter is that whether she was running 11 3/5, 12 4/5 or 19, she was still decelerating down the lane. Her last 8th was slower than the one before it. I just didn't see this great acceleration that others saw. I watched that horse Christmas Kid win the Davona Dale the other day at Gulfstream. I know, different tracks, different scenarios. But I don't see anyone raving about her. Her finishing time, not the final time of the race, but final quarter mile, was nearly identical to what Rags did, despite the fact that she ran faster earlier. I felt like the performances of Baroness Thatcher and Runway Rosie, while not taking away from what Rags did, helped create an optical illusion that made it look better.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I'm not expecting them to run like the best in the game. Allowances should be given for the fact that they are 3yo fillies and for the fact that it was only her third career start. That's why I understand that she has a lot of room to improve and will likely be even better. My analysis wasn't on how good she is or can be though. It was simply on that one race. I didn't see it as special. The way most of the people described it, u would have thought she was pulling a Silky Sullivan coming down the lane. The truth of the matter is that whether she was running 11 3/5, 12 4/5 or 19, she was still decelerating down the lane. Her last 8th was slower than the one before it. I just didn't see this great acceleration that others saw. I watched that horse Christmas Kid win the Davona Dale the other day at Gulfstream. I know, different tracks, different scenarios. But I don't see anyone raving about her. Her finishing time, not the final time of the race, but final quarter mile, was nearly identical to what Rags did, despite the fact that she ran faster earlier. I felt like the performances of Baroness Thatcher and Runway Rosie, while not taking away from what Rags did, helped create an optical illusion that made it look better.

Did you perhaps see anything special today? Or was this another optical illusion? Everyone and their mother knew that the Las Virgenes effort was much the best that day because of how extremely wide she raced. Her sheet number was huge.

[whodey17]

According to Tabor, Smith and Plether the KY Derby for R2R is a possibility. I think they may go against the boys next time and see what they have. If they lose off to the Oaks, if they win or perform really well then it is off to the Derby.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I'm not expecting them to run like the best in the game. Allowances should be given for the fact that they are 3yo fillies and for the fact that it was only her third career start. That's why I understand that she has a lot of room to improve and will likely be even better. My analysis wasn't on how good she is or can be though. It was simply on that one race. I didn't see it as special. The way most of the people described it, u would have thought she was pulling a Silky Sullivan coming down the lane. The truth of the matter is that whether she was running 11 3/5, 12 4/5 or 19, she was still decelerating down the lane. Her last 8th was slower than the one before it. I just didn't see this great acceleration that others saw. I watched that horse Christmas Kid win the Davona Dale the other day at Gulfstream. I know, different tracks, different scenarios. But I don't see anyone raving about her. Her finishing time, not the final time of the race, but final quarter mile, was nearly identical to what Rags did, despite the fact that she ran faster earlier. I felt like the performances of Baroness Thatcher and Runway Rosie, while not taking away from what Rags did, helped create an optical illusion that made it look better.

And today, I was rewarded with her $21 win in the Ashland.