See I dont really think that a Grade II should count less. The Arkansas Derby is a Grade II. Why should that count differently from the Bluegrass, SA Derby or the Wood?

just saw street sence replay on tvg..hi ho calvin....nice pick andy..

I agree with that. Maybe it should increase by date or timing.

It's not easy and one could argue the simpler the better. Nothing will be totally fair. The bottom line is if you race your horse the deserving ones will get in. If you pull a John Ward, and never run, you won't.

Bullsheet, because you can't be certain he'll be a better 4YO than 3YO. Flower Alley? You can only compare WHAT THEY HAVE DONE.

Thanks. I believe he is the finest thoroughbred to ever look through a bridle.

That is until he loses....or fails to run his race.

That is certainly an issue I have with the grading committee. I'd be fine with putting the Blue Grass/SA Derby/Wood/Arkansas Derby/Florida Derby equal, then putting the Lane's End, Gotham, Santa Catalina, Rebel, FOY a notch below, then putting the Southwest, Holy Bull, and whatever other February preps there are a notch below that.

Exactly. There are plenty of races to run and you have to race your horse in order to get in.

ha so funny..it works on so many levels...

I think that's a tough call really...on the one hand weighting those races would help preserve the heritage and prestige of those important grade 1's, By making them worth the most on a points system they would naturally be the targets of the best 3 YO (not that they aren't already) but on the other hand forcing an owner to choose between chasing glory and chasing money is a tough thing to do...some of the newer graded stakes offer a chance at a huge payday...it would be tough if they were worth less on a point's scale, at least from an owner's perspective.

And why is that fair? You're comparing a 3 year old to a 4 year old...

I dont know. I mean, everyone would be poiting to one of the races with the top pts. What happens if the SA Derby over subscribes and your horses doesnt get in. It isnt like you can immediately change your plans. I like your thinking and I think you are onto to something. Lets tweak this a bit and see what we come up with.

Sorry man, I totally disagree....90% of horses get better as 4-year-olds and he DEFINATELY had the pedigree to be a better older horse.....Remember, the horse only had a handful of races and only raced for like 9 months and was very unseasoned because he could never find anyone who could run with him most of his career....the first battle-test he recieved was last Saturday and now we unfortunately won't get to see how uch he would have improved and benefitted from it....

Say what you will, this horse had as much natural ability and talent than any other horse that has run the last 15-20 years.....I really believe that...There is no right or wrong with that belief because it is all specualtion because normal people won't believe it until you prove it on the track, and unfortunately he'll never get that opportunity....sucks, but I saw enough to have that opinion of him....

Isn't that what we should be going for? Get everyone in those five preps to earn their way in instead of getting in based on running second in the Delta Jackpot as a 2yo? If you have a bad day in the big prep then you have points from your prior races to fallback on but if your trainer campaigned you too lightly and you flop on the big day then you get what you deserved for putting all your eggs in one basket.

Wouldn't that destroy a lot of fields for other races, though?

I think it would. If your horse runs 4th in the SA Derby and some horse wins the Lanes End, who is to say that the 4th place finish it below a weak Grade II. Again, I like the thinking, I just think we need to tweak it a bit. Make it sort of a combintation of things.

I don't want a system where 4th in the SA Derby is better than winning the Lane's End. It would be more like winning the Lane's End is equivalent to 2nd in the SA Derby. Winning a Feb prep like the Holy Bull would be equivalent to 3rd in the SA Derby. It wouldn't alter things at all for those races because the purse increases each month mirror the point increases. It would prevent the outliers like the Delta Jackpot or graded turf races or graded sprints from having too much of an impact and would correct issues like the Arkansas Derby counting for more than the Wood Memorial because the purse is higher.

The point was Cunningham said he was better than Ghostzapper, so I compared what they have done. It's unfair to us as racing fans to not be able to see him as a 4YO potential all time great, but since we won't we'll have to base our comparisons on what they both did on track. And at this point, he's good- but not an all time great.
I for one don't think he's even the best of his generation.

That is why OPINIONS are great and widely diverse... :) if not, there would be no need for a website like Derbytrail....it is good to hear different people's opinions and the best thing is that nobody is right and we are all right at the same time....thats what makes it interesting in the debate...

I doubt many people come on here for handicapping hints ;)

that is an absolute insult to Steve and to all the people who DO indeed visit the site for his Handicapping tips...don't you think?

Oh God, here we go again.....NO Bethani, it is not an insult to Steve....Gus and I give as many selections as anyone on this site...it is what it is....I was simply counting the number of thread views in the Paddock area versus the Selections area...it is pure math..

I have OBVIOUSLY made an enemy with you and you are always now going to spin my posts in a negative light going forward...very unfortunate :( Steve knows where I stand with him.....Sorry you feel this way

P.S. - The stats are there for anyone to see and it appears as though well under 10% of the posts and views are in the Selections section, while the Paddock area is easily the most popular section....that is NOT my opinion, that is fact...sorry for your misinterretation - and now perhaps I am the one who deserves an apology

It doesn't have to be like this......

please...you are creating spin here not me...I was hardly suggesting that the only reason people visit the site is for handicapping but for you to suggest that that is not why they are here is ridiculous...and an insult to steve.

I can guarantee nobody here visits this site primarily for handcapping tips, although I did give out Invasor if you read my selections. :)

You are spinning so hard we should call you Bill O'Reilly. How anyone can read his post as an insult is comical. Me calling you Bill O'Reilly is an insult though. :eek:

please thats why you put the link to your capt obv plays...chalk kills..

now you are insulting the poeple who think Bill O'reilly is telling the truth about his no spin zone.

Yes I am, and that is no spin. I can insult that idiot Keith Olbermann if you want me to be "fair and balanced" but I think Olbermann only has about 5 viewers so nobody probably knows who he is. :eek:


Back to Scat Daddy, very poor performance by him in my opinion. Makes me think Nobiz like Shobiz might not be all that afterall.

Kasept mentioned when he spoke to Matz about Round Pond that he ran her in the Beldame for seasoning, I think he said something like a race is the equivalent to 5 workouts...She wasn't cranked for the Beldame, but would get enough out of it to be ready for the BC...I believe if Invasior ran in the JCGC he would have won by more on Sat...That was a long layoff and to run like that is a credit to Mcglaughlin, he had Closing Arguement ready to run a great Derby with only two starts, so he's pretty good at doing that...Also, it's not like Bernardini was over run, his races were spaced and he was in training the whole time which is a credit to Albertrani and Bernardini being such a balanced horse, he could stay in training...I believe Bernardini ran his race, he wasn't good enough, no disgrace, he will win 3yo of the year...Some people won't admit(not you specifically), that they overvalued the horse, that's okay, maybe they'll learn or next time they make such projections we will know that they are probably not as good as they think they are...

" ...the best thing is that nobody is right and we are all right at the same time ... "


That is specifically, and exactly, false. And, frankly, it speaks volumes. You seem to think that, regardless of results, whatever opinions you have are correct as apparently it is the horse that was wrong...not you. However, some opinions are prescient and correct and are proven so and many are neither and are proven wrong. This is what happens in racing. This is important at the windows but not in cyberspace. It becomes more and more apparent where different posters make their bets so to speak.

you are correct...i wanted bern to win as a fan /as a gambler at even money no...

Really? I thought Happy Ticket - who would have won at 13-1 with Round Pond's rail rally trip - and Street Sense at double digits were decent non-chalk angles....Who cares? It is what it is....if you (or anybody) EVER take any of my selections and play them with expectations then I have failed to do what I want to do. The whole point of handicapping IMO is to try and see people's angles on why they like horses and then come to your own conclusions based on your convictions......it should be an education tool more than an investment analysis IMO....

I'm confused, did you write that to blackthroatedwind or to yourself?

of course .. the would have one angle is great...and most had street sence here...ma red rocks ?...education..i think not..but in the end you get payed to do it and i just get payed..at the windows..

OPINION :

–noun 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.


...you have your opinions and you come to a conclusion on them as they are the right beliefes in your mind....mine are the right beliefs in my mind, thus I am always right to me....there is no fact here, Andy

I thought Barbaro was better, but that's just my lousy opinion. :) With that said, I don't think that Bernardini and Ghostzapper should even be compared since it's unfair to both... what was done by Bernie as a 3 year old definitely topped out GZ's 3 year old season, and what was done as a 4 year old for GZ defnitely topped out Bernie's 4 year old season, SINCE HE DIDN'T HAVE ONE! LMAO...

I hate just giving picks out without giving an angle...its somethinmg I don't like to do because anyone can do it.....YES, I do believe an analysts primary intention SHOULD be to educate and treat handicapping as an educational tool and take that approach far moreso than just throwing out picks and expecting people to invest in them, but that is just my opinion....we neeed to teach more people about how and why we like cartain horses to get them better educated so that they can feel confident betting on their OWN convictions - which is half the fun of it....nobody will really invest money on the opinions of others.... belive people play more and invest more based on their personal education level - and this port frankly does not do a good enough job of educating casual bettors and new customers on ghwo to play the horses....t is one of the sport's greatest downfalls IMO.....

BTW, Red Rocks cost me about anywhere from $2,800 - $4,000 in my Pick 3s :mad: :D

Joel, I think we all know the definition of " opinion ". However, there are different kinds of opinions. Some are personal preference ( Food, music, literature, art, etc ) and some are predictive ( " in my opinion such-and-such horse will win Saturday ) and these kind are proven right or wrong over time. Surely you know this and can differentiate between which kind of opinions we are discussing here.

Dude, my head is spinning... I need something domestic, light and cold. :D

So you are saying that my opinion of Bernie being one of the more talented horses in the last 15-20 years was somehow proved otherwise by fact?....I don't think so, not after one race where he didn't fire big and never had a chance to run at the peak of his career......

Remember, most of the all-time greats lost races - Does that make them not great IN YOUR OPINION? :confused:

I think you are determined to not admit you were wrong IN ANY WAY. What you really should do is temper your specific enthusiam to a realistic level. Bernardini is a fine horse, most likely one of the best hundred or so in the time period you mention. But, his performances on the racetrack completely belie your opinion of him. Saying something is so does not make it so. A horse has only his performances to speak for him.

I have always thought Bernardini was a nice horse. I also thought highly of Invasor and was far from surprised at Saturday's result. They were two evenly matched horses who would probably split decisions fairly evenly if they met a number of times. But, make no mistake, neither has done anything on the track to place them in any kind of elite group.

Horses who were absolutely better? Off the top of my head....Ghostzapper, Holy Bull, Skip Away, Formal Gold, Candy Ride, Tiznow, Easy Goer, Sunday Silence, probably Cigar, AP Indy, Dubai Millenium. But the list of comparable horses is endless...Point Given, Medaglia D'Oro, maybe even Saint Liam, Smarty Jones, Silver Charm, Touch Gold, Lido Palace, Street Cry, Left Bank, Congaree, Will's Way...I'm sure you get the drift.

You feel some sort of connection to Bernardini, which is great, but that doesn't alter his resume. What he is/was is another in a long line of nice horses who has a reasonable resume of success.

No way my friend. Buy American when it comes to things like cars.

Buy foreign when it comes to light and cold things that are simultaneously refreshing.