Brass Hat/Willie-NTR (With PDrift arguing!)

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

Ok, I understand the argument now. It's based on Johnson's training ability. I still think he put him in good races for most of his career that he belonged in. I dont' think placement was ever much of a problem with him. I see the same things said about Sanders, and I really don't think Teuflesberg's placements have been too bad this year either for the most part.

IF he's bad, he's bad I guess. I dont' study trainer stats too much which is where I am lacking. I guess Drift could have gone to a better trainer with a better chemistry set and won 6.3 million I suppose and 2 more grade 1s I suppose. Whatever....

The horse could've had wings today and it still wouldn't have changed the result. Just because these suspect trainers juice doesn't mean they can't train.

[The Bid]

I dont think I knocked his spotting of the horse, I just dont think Murray is any kind of trainer. Its nothing I can explain to you or prove to you. To prove it you would have to watch him train that horse day after day. You would need to have a general idea how its supposed to be done. Then you would probaly draw the same conclusion I have. The horse was an extreme talent that could have been anything. He probably reached half his potential, maybe 60 percent.

Now the horse is old and doesnt want to run anymore. He was old 2 years ago and didnt want to do it anymore. For a nice classy horse like PD its no fun getting your brains beat in. Im sure somewhere between being old, and getting drilled he lost his desire to run

[ELA]

Originally Posted by The Bid

I dont think I knocked his spotting of the horse, I just dont think Murray is any kind of trainer. Its nothing I can explain to you or prove to you. To prove it you would have to watch him train that horse day after day. You would need to have a general idea how its supposed to be done. Then you would probaly draw the same conclusion I have. The horse was an extreme talent that could have been anything. He probably reached half his potential, maybe 60 percent.

Now the horse is old and doesnt want to run anymore. He was old 2 years ago and didnt want to do it anymore. For a nice classy horse like PD its no fun getting your brains beat in. Im sure somewhere between being old, and getting drilled he lost his desire to run

Good point. Like I've said, it might be a fallacious arguement. It might be a combination of the two that got the results we've seen. Who knows what would have happened had this guy raced him lower. Would he have trained him the same way? Would the horse have performed, bounced back, etc. the same way? And so on.

Eric

[ELA]

There are many horses who have won a great deal of money -- who many (and I refer to well-respected horsemen) feel, are of the opinion, etc. that the horse was minsmanaged. In certain cases this may be an exercise in futility, others perhaps not. Eventually though it all ends up supposition because the horse raced where he raced.

As far as a horse being mismanaged, here in this forum, we could really only talk about where the horse was placed. As far as the training side of mismanagement -- no offense to anyone -- that is merely a bunch of armchair trainers, internet and self-proclaimed experts, etc. talking nonsense about something that for the most part they know nothing about. If Chuck Simon wanted to give his opinion, that's another story, but that's also another discussion.

I have found that sitting on the front-side, and sitting in judgement of decisions -- some of which are -- made on the back-side, is extremely easy and extremely foolish. The arguement here is a perfect example of the core issue though. This horse would have won more money if he had been with a better trainer; and many better trainers tend to pick better sopts. Yes, they are better trainers, but their results also come from being more aggressive.

Eric

[The Bid]

The horse wasnt terribly mismanaged, he was terribly trained.

[ELA]

I am not disputing the #'s, and you obviously missed my points. I am not saying the guy is a good or bad trainer. It doesn't make a difference to me. I'll leave the arguing to those who enjoy it.

Simply put, there are those who will believe that the horse was poorly trained, trained incorrectly, etc. and would have done better in the exact same spots had another -- top notch -- trainer been training him. And, then there are those who believe that the horse was not placed well.

Which came first -- the chicken or the egg?

Eric

[ELA]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

So your point was to sum up what has already been said and then to state the obvious. thanks.

Yeah, that was the point, LOL.

Eric