Curlin and Pyro

[pmayjr]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Give me some credit.

I could never have done it were it not for your equally ridiculous post using the same lines of thinking prior to mine.

C'mon B-dub... If you get the job done in Vegas last weekend you coulda bought a 5% share in him... So in the end, it's your own damn fault lol.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I said that pretty much everyone on here is close to the same.

I don't mean to pile on here KG, but I was shocked that nobody replied to this comment. What exactly do you mean here? Do you mean everyone on here is "close to the same" in terms of their ability to analyze talent and/or handicap? If I am reading you right, and that is in fact what you are saying, I completely disagree. There are a number of people on this board that know at least fifty times what I do, and have probably had fifty times the success too.
That is what I like about this kind of board. It gives people like me and you a chance to argue horses, not just with each other, but with people that are actually good at this business. To say everyone on here is "close to the same" seems like an insult to those people on here that are actually really good.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Maybe he wouldn't have beaten Easy Goer and Sunday Silence that year but his former rider, hall of famer Chris McCarron, who rode Sunday Silence also, once said that it was his opinion (and I think he knows a little something about horses) that up to a mile, EG and SS wouldn't have been able to catch KG. I know a mile is not the classic distance but it's still meaningful. If KG was as good as they were up to a mile, according to McCarron, that's enough for me to believe that my belief in his ability is not totally unfounded.

Let me make sure I'm getting this right...

You are primarily basing your argument for King Glorious being the best horse to race in the last 22 years because Chris McCarron (a jockey!) said he felt Easy Goer or Sunday Silence might not catch him at distances up to a mile??

Wow.

Look, i've seen film of many King Glorious races - he was an excellent talent for sure and was probably a lot better than most people (besides you obviously) think he was.

However, he was simply not the best horse to race in the last 22 years.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by miraja2

I don't mean to pile on here KG, but I was shocked that nobody replied to this comment. What exactly do you mean here? Do you mean everyone on here is "close to the same" in terms of their ability to analyze talent and/or handicap? If I am reading you right, and that is in fact what you are saying, I completely disagree. There are a number of people on this board that know at least fifty times what I do, and have probably had fifty times the success too.
That is what I like about this kind of board. It gives people like me and you a chance to argue horses, not just with each other, but with people that are actually good at this business. To say everyone on here is "close to the same" seems like an insult to those people on here that are actually really good.

There are some that are better at certain aspects of the game. I understand that. And I didn't literally mean every single person. I'm saying that in general, I believe that if u took most of the people from this forum, we'd come out pretty close to the same. I might catch a Smarty Jones and call him a Derby winner in January. I might catch a Curlin in March and say that he'll prove to be the best 3yo by the end of the year. I might also catch a Galloping Grocer and think he's going to be a superstar or pick Cause to Believe to win the Derby. I think that over time, most of us pretty much even out. That's all I was saying. I have some good ones on my record. Perhaps I was just lucky every time. The reason I like this board is because I know that I don't know it all and that there are people that see things from different perspectives and can point out things that can help me. But that doesn't mean that they are never wrong just as it doesn't mean that I can't ever be right.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Let me make sure I'm getting this right...

You are primarily basing your argument for King Glorious being the best horse to race in the last 22 years because Chris McCarron (a jockey!) said he felt Easy Goer or Sunday Silence might not catch him at distances up to a mile??

Wow.

Look, i've seen film of many King Glorious races - he was an excellent talent for sure and was probably a lot better than most people (besides you obviously) think he was.

However, he was simply not the best horse to race in the last 22 years.

Not at all. I used McCarron's comments as a basis for saying that the belief in how good he was is not totally off the wall if someone that has ridden him and another horse (SS) that if I had listed him #1, nobody would say anything, is somewhat in agreement with it.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

There are some that are better at certain aspects of the game. I understand that. And I didn't literally mean every single person. I'm saying that in general, I believe that if u took most of the people from this forum, we'd come out pretty close to the same. I might catch a Smarty Jones and call him a Derby winner in January. I might catch a Curlin in March and say that he'll prove to be the best 3yo by the end of the year. I might also catch a Galloping Grocer and think he's going to be a superstar or pick Cause to Believe to win the Derby. I think that over time, most of us pretty much even out. That's all I was saying. I have some good ones on my record. Perhaps I was just lucky every time. The reason I like this board is because I know that I don't know it all and that there are people that see things from different perspectives and can point out things that can help me. But that doesn't mean that they are never wrong just as it doesn't mean that I can't ever be right.

I agree with the second thing I have highlighted here, but I disagree with the first. If everyone on this board participated in some sort of lengthy contest with a lot of races involved, I think the top handicappers would come out ahead. Does that mean that on a given day an average or below-average handicapper like me can't beat a pro? Of course not. Does it mean the average cappers shouldn't voice their opinions too? Nope.
But in the long run, none of that changes the fact that they'll beat me....and you. Sure we might catch the big winner every once in a blue moon that they miss, but I don't think that changes the fact that there is a fairly vast difference between the great handicappers and the average handicappers, and also between the average handicappers and the clueless morons.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Not at all. I used McCarron's comments as a basis for saying that the belief in how good he was is not totally off the wall if someone that has ridden him and another horse (SS) that if I had listed him #1, nobody would say anything, is somewhat in agreement with it.

Jockeys are terrible handicappers.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by miraja2

I agree with the second thing I have highlighted here, but I disagree with the first. If everyone on this board participated in some sort of lengthy contest with a lot of races involved, I think the top handicappers would come out ahead. Does that mean that on a given day an average or below-average handicapper like me can't beat a pro? Of course not. Does it mean the average cappers shouldn't voice their opinions too? Nope.
But in the long run, none of that changes the fact that they'll beat me....and you. Sure we might catch the big winner every once in a blue moon that they miss, but I don't think that changes the fact that there is a fairly vast difference between the great handicappers and the average handicappers, and also between the average handicappers and the clueless morons.

I'm not speaking of handicapping though. In that area, I do believe that there is a big difference among us on here. When it comes to handicapping and wagering, I'm arguably the biggest idiot on here because I'm too stubborn. But look at the example I gave earlier. I didn't believe that Midnight Lute would win the Sprint. Nine times out of 10, I wouldn't have included him on my ticket because I have a hard time justifying to myself playing a horse that I think can't win. And I would have lost. But this time, I did play him and I cashed a ticket. I cashed even though when I handicapped and analyzed the race, I didn't figure him as a winner. So while I admit that when it comes to handicapping and figuring out how to construct tickets and bet, there can be big differences, I think that when it comes to just flat out picking out who's a good horse and who's a bad horse, we are pretty much even.

[Getaway]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I don't see how it would help Pyro. If it would have any effect, it would be detrimental to Curlin if he's the type to run down to his competition. Running with a rat like Pyro won't help.

Looks like somebody took a shot on pyro in the BC........................what a clown.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Getaway

Looks like somebody took a shot on pyro in the BC........................what a clown.

You waited three months between posts for this brilliance?

I think it's pretty apparent who's a clown.

[Getaway]

sorry, I'll be a little quicker next time clown