Not raced at two results

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

I don't think anybody is saying that...I get tired of repeating myself but...angles are another handicapping tool, they can be of value in determining whether a horse is a good bet or not. They don't take the place of normal handicapping or common sense. Last year, I bet Barbaro despite the RAN Curse, I bet (unfortunately) Point Given despite his running afoul of a couple angles...they are tools, nothing more!

You may get tired of repeating yourself, but I also get tired of seeing these angles portrayed as handicapping tools. Frankly I don't see these rules, or angles, as just ANOTHER handicapping tool, I see them as BAD handicapping tools. As you say, normal handicapping and common sense should apply to this race, like it does to other races.

Not having raced at two does not apply to many derby starters, so it doesn't rule out many horses. The far more difficult task is what to do with all the horses that did start at two.

You mention that you posted that list to show what Curlin is up against. To me that kind of thinking is wrong, he is not up against all that history, he is only up against this field on Saturday.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

You may get tired of repeating yourself, but I also get tired of seeing these angles portrayed as handicapping tools. Frankly I don't see these rules, or angles, as just ANOTHER handicapping tool, I see them as BAD handicapping tools. As you say, normal handicapping and common sense should apply to this race, like it does to other races.

Not having raced at two does not apply to many derby starters, so it doesn't rule out many horses. The far more difficult task is what to do with all the horses that did start at two.

You mention that you posted that list to show what Curlin is up against. To me that kind of thinking is wrong, he is not up against all that history, he is only up against this field on Saturday.

Amen brother!

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

You may get tired of repeating yourself, but I also get tired of seeing these angles portrayed as handicapping tools. Frankly I don't see these rules, or angles, as just ANOTHER handicapping tool, I see them as BAD handicapping tools. As you say, normal handicapping and common sense should apply to this race, like it does to other races.

Not having raced at two does not apply to many derby starters, so it doesn't rule out many horses. The far more difficult task is what to do with all the horses that did start at two.

You mention that you posted that list to show what Curlin is up against. To me that kind of thinking is wrong, he is not up against all that history, he is only up against this field on Saturday.

If they aren't tools what would you like me to call them? Past Performances can be criticized the same way...what Curlin did in the Ark Derby doesn't necessarily translate into how he will run Saturday but most handicappers ( myself included) study PP's...why? Because they are useful tools along with others. A tool isn't good or bad, it's how you use them. There are dozens of angles I don't list cause I fail to see any causal relationship in them...the ones I do list I can defend (except for Damascus one and I state that). Call me stupid but I think a lot of folks who are thinking about betting Curlin to win might want to know that no horse without a race at two has won the Derby since 1882 and with less than 5 LT starts has won since 1918...of course Curlin may win but betting him should be a decision based on all available info not just that which you favor.

[randallscott35]

Somer, training is different than it was just decades ago. So going back a 100 years doesn't do it for me. The layoff issues are much less of a problem for me. Silly things like geldings being an issue was thankfully disproved. Flukes happen and slow horses like Giacomo occasionally win. Essentially it isn't meaningless but it isn't meaningful either. Races at 2, maybe is an issue. I don't like Curlin who is light on experience, but if he had the same number of races so far and his first one was on Dec 31st I doubt that would drastically change anyone's view of him.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Somer, training is different than it was just decades ago. So going back a 100 years doesn't do it for me. The layoff issues are much less of a problem for me. Silly things like geldings being an issue was thankfully disproved. Flukes happen and slow horses like Giacomo occasionally win. Essentially it isn't meaningless but it isn't meaningful either. Races at 2, maybe is an issue. I don't like Curlin who is light on experience, but if he had the same number of races so far and his first one was on Dec 31st I doubt that would drastically change anyone's view of him.

Randy...I've been waiting for you....
Nor should it...FuPeg raced the last week in December for his only 2yo race...not many of us jumped off him and we wouldn't if he raced a week later. Again...common sense! I list angles with the assumption that most handicappers have common sense. I agree that training (and breeding) has changed over the past century but these angles have held the last 20, 10, 5 years as well. Again, if I like Curlin, I'll bet Curlin but part of "liking" him is being able to convince myself that he can do what the likes of Pulpit, Indian Charlie and so many others couldn't.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Randy...I've been waiting for you....
Nor should it...FuPeg raced the last week in December for his only 2yo race...not many of us jumped off him and we wouldn't if he raced a week later. Again...common sense! I list angles with the assumption that most handicappers have common sense. I agree that training (and breeding) has changed over the past century but these angles have held the last 20, 10, 5 years as well. Again, if I like Curlin, I'll bet Curlin but part of "liking" him is being able to convince myself that he can do what the likes of Pulpit, Indian Charlie and so many others couldn't.

LOL, I feel like Darth Vader....Curlin won't do it so your angles will be safe another year.

[packerbacker7964]

I think the racing at two thing also brings in the fact lot's of good horses race at an early age. If they are well breed the owners are more inclined to race them early because they were bought at an early sale. Late foals are another thing as is an early problem with their body's.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

If they aren't tools what would you like me to call them? Past Performances can be criticized the same way...what Curlin did in the Ark Derby doesn't necessarily translate into how he will run Saturday but most handicappers ( myself included) study PP's...why? Because they are useful tools along with others. A tool isn't good or bad, it's how you use them. There are dozens of angles I don't list cause I fail to see any causal relationship in them...the ones I do list I can defend (except for Damascus one and I state that). Call me stupid but I think a lot of folks who are thinking about betting Curlin to win might want to know that no horse without a race at two has won the Derby since 1882 and with less than 5 LT starts has won since 1918...of course Curlin may win but betting him should be a decision based on all available info not just that which you favor.

Let me ask you, what is the causal relationship between Showup losing to Barbaro, et al, last year, and Curlins chances against this group on Saturday.

[letswastemoney]

Why aren't geldings supposed to win the Derby again?? I mean aren't they the same thing as male horses except without the thingamadobber.

I guess it's because there are less geldings out there? If it was 50 percent geldings, then they'd probably win about half of the Derbys.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by letswastemoney

I guess it's because there are less geldings out there? If it was 50 percent geldings, then they'd probably win about half of the Derbys.

Your point seems very obvious, but people seem to have forgetten some fairly obvious points around here. A lot of horses that win the Derby were very good 2yo colts. Very good 2yo colts aren't often gelded. That probably has more to do with it than the fact that geldings are somehow mysteriously jinxed.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by miraja2

Your point seems very obvious, but people seem to have forgetten some fairly obvious points around here. A lot of horses that win the Derby were very good 2yo colts. Very good 2yo colts aren't often gelded. That probably has more to do with it than the fact that geldings are somehow mysteriously jinxed.

Again, these angles all have a defendable explanation...they aren't "curses" or "jinxs" I agree that colts that show early promise aren't gelded unless there are physical problems.

[somerfrost]

Also, and Brock can probably help here, but it wasn't that long ago that geldings weren't allowed to enter major stake races in Europe (don't recall exactly when that changed or whether it applied to all graded stakes or just group ones)....they were thought to be unable to compete against colts/horses.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by letswastemoney

Why aren't geldings supposed to win the Derby again?? I mean aren't they the same thing as male horses except without the thingamadobber.

I guess it's because there are less geldings out there? If it was 50 percent geldings, then they'd probably win about half of the Derbys.

There have been studies which indicate that a colt gelded early in life will develop physically a bit slower than one not gelded...if true, this would put the gelded horse at a physical disadvantage early in the 3yo season at a distance....but probably the main reason is that well-bred colts and those that show early promise aren't gelded as this would cost the owner potentially millions in stud fees. Look at the famous geldings...the ones that excelled on the track...most ran their best races well after their 3yo season...Kelso, Forego, John Henry as examples.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

Let me ask you, what is the causal relationship between Showup losing to Barbaro, et al, last year, and Curlins chances against this group on Saturday.

There is a causal relationship between not racing at two and having an adequate foundation to race 10 furlongs the first Sat in May against a field of 15-20 horses. Since Showup and Curlin are different horses, the effect will be different...I can't say that because Showup didn't win, neither will Curlin...all I am saying is that they share the same circumstance (no race at two) and I cite data regarding the results of Derby horses with no race at two. I can see from the data (43 horses since 1956, probably over 100 easily since 1882) that 0% of horses with no races at two have won the Derby while approximately 6-7% of all horses running in the Derby have won...what one makes of that is up to the individual, it is simply data!

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

There is a causal relationship between not racing at two and having an adequate foundation to race 10 furlongs the first Sat in May against a field of 15-20 horses. Since Showup and Curlin are different horses, the effect will be different...I can't say that because Showup didn't win, neither will Curlin...all I am saying is that they share the same circumstance (no race at two) and I cite data regarding the results of Derby horses with no race at two. I can see from the data (43 horses since 1956, probably over 100 easily since 1882) that 0% of horses with no races at two have won the Derby while approximately 6-7% of all horses running in the Derby have won...what one makes of that is up to the individual, it is simply data!

In a way man, I feel for you. I know you are just providing people with info and letting them figure out what to do with it.
I guess the problem is.....I don't think they should do a damn thing with any of it. If Curlin had run a 5f race last September, and then sat on the shelf for months (for whatever reason) before making his 3yo debut, he would be off the list, but would he actually have a more solid foundation?

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by miraja2

In a way man, I feel for you. I know you are just providing people with info and letting them figure out what to do with it.
I guess the problem is.....I don't think they should do a damn thing with any of it. If Curlin had run a 5f race last September, and then sat on the shelf for months (for whatever reason) before making his 3yo debut, he would be off the list, but would he actually have a more solid foundation?

Curlin didn't start racing until when? He has raced 3 times...I would question his foundation whether he raced at two or not based on his total of three. Again, logic and common sense come into play...a 5f race at two and two preps at three and I wouldn't value him any higher, a 5f race at two and four preps at three and I would certainly look at him!

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Curlin didn't start racing until when? He has raced 3 times...I would question his foundation whether he raced at two or not based on his total of three. Again, logic and common sense come into play...a 5f race at two and two preps at three and I wouldn't value him any higher, a 5f race at two and four preps at three and I would certainly look at him!

Again, not to get into a lot of vet research but there are studies concerning the effects of 2yo racing on such things as lung capacity, bone density, muscle development...again, Brock...are you here? I know you cited some of these studies. Remember that if a horse raced at two, he/she also trained up to said race, so he/she had a lot more serious work (on average) than a horse who wasn't readied for racing until three.