Can someone explain the Colonel John silliness to me?

[slotdirt]

I just can't buy the speed figures out at Santa Anita right now, so I use that in my mind to justify my feelings on Colonel John. I think he's probably one of the more likely entrants in this year's Derby to run his race, and the hrose does always seem to fire. He does have the two prep angle that has brought down many a fine animal before, for whatever that is worth.

[King Glorious]

Because he's a good horse. Because he's consistent. Because he doesn't look like the distance will be a problem. Because he's a good horse. The whole thing about Tiznow's being better on the synthetics is silly to me. If you take a horse and take 80% of his offspring and run them on the grass, it's going to look like he's a grass sire. Opportunity has a lot to do with what categories sires are pigeonholed into. Colonel John's record is the most consistent of any Derby entrant not named Big Brown. He's a good horse. IMO, to say that you wouldn't play him to win because you don't know how he'll transition to regular dirt is ok. To say you wouldn't play him at all, in this type of field, I don't get that at all.

[sumitas]

And who finished 2nd to the Colonel in the SA ? You can't dismiss him either because he's working well with blinkers that are striaghtening him out, according to his trainer. So if you like the Colonel, what's not to like about BBJ ? Ahh, I'm chillin till derby week with my guy.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by sumitas

And who finished 2nd to the Colonel in the SA ? You can't dismiss him either because he's working well with blinkers that are striaghtening him out, according to his trainer. So if you like the Colonel, what's not to like about BBJ ?

-much tougher pace scenario likely in 2 weeks
-doesn't look like a natural for 10f
-better options available if you think someone is going to win wire-to-wire.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Because he's a good horse. Because he's consistent. Because he doesn't look like the distance will be a problem. Because he's a good horse. The whole thing about Tiznow's being better on the synthetics is silly to me. If you take a horse and take 80% of his offspring and run them on the grass, it's going to look like he's a grass sire. Opportunity has a lot to do with what categories sires are pigeonholed into. Colonel John's record is the most consistent of any Derby entrant not named Big Brown. He's a good horse. IMO, to say that you wouldn't play him to win because you don't know how he'll transition to regular dirt is ok. To say you wouldn't play him at all, in this type of field, I don't get that at all.

If that were only remotely close to true. Tiznow has had 84 horses race this year and produced 27 winners (32%). On synthetics he has 11 winners from 31 runners (35%). It is virtually impossible to have a higher percentage on synthetics since horses that lose once on synthetic and win five times on dirt would count against you in the synthetic category. In fact, I'm pretty sure you won't find another horse with a higher synthetic winning percentage than overall win percentage besides Tiznow. 67% of his earnings also come from the synthetics.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

If that were only remotely close to true. Tiznow has had 84 horses race this year and produced 27 winners (32%). On synthetics he has 11 winners from 31 runners (35%). It is virtually impossible to have a higher percentage on synthetics since horses that lose once on synthetic and win five times on dirt would count against you in the synthetic category. In fact, I'm pretty sure you won't find another horse with a higher synthetic winning percentage than overall win percentage besides Tiznow. 67% of his earnings also come from the synthetics.

Even more troublesome than that to me....

CJ's dam was a better horse on the turf.