6/7 (BEL): 140th Belmont Stakes

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

It's Anak Nakal. I've watched the race and I didn't notice any trouble. He wasn't going to run much better than he did. He runs the same race every time. Avoid the pace and pass some tired horses to finish a non-threatening fourth or fifth or seventh.

I wish I didn't have anything to learn about the game.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I wish I didn't have anything to learn about the game.

Because I know Anak Nakal sucks and that he didn't have a bad trip, that means I think that I have nothing to learn? You just said yourself there was nothing wrong with his trip, what's the problem with me saying it?

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Because I know Anak Nakal sucks and that he didn't have a bad trip, that means I think that I have nothing to learn? You just said yourself there was nothing wrong with his trip, what's the problem with me saying it?

Because I watched it carefully....and you quoted the chart ( not a great idea in general ).

One of my basic tenets of handicapping is to leave no available stone unturned. I do the work. A lot of it is drudgery, no doubt, but you have to find things out for yourself. It's often irrelevent for that specific instance but it can be very helpful for another situation.

It's really a question of how much you want to learn. I understand, I'm obsessive, and this is my life, but because of that I'm not going to be tolerant in a conversation about specifics with someone who isn't willing to even get on the playing field.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Because I watched it carefully....and you quoted the chart ( not a great idea in general ).

One of my basic tenets of handicapping is to leave no available stone unturned. I do the work. A lot of it is drudgery, no doubt, but you have to find things out for yourself. It's often irrelevent for that specific instance but it can be very helpful for another situation.

It's really a question of how much you want to learn. I understand, I'm obsessive, and this is my life, but because of that I'm not going to be tolerant in a conversation about specifics with someone who isn't willing to even get on the playing field.

I quoted the chart because I've watched the race a million times and I'm not going to spend five minutes dissecting the flawless trip of a crappy horse who finished seventh in the Derby and has no shot in the Belmont.

Where did I say "Here's what the chart says, so I don't need to watch the race"?

[blackthroatedwind]

You're sticking your heels in instead of listening to what I'm saying.

It's not really about Anak Nakal.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

You're sticking your heels in instead of listening to what I'm saying.

It's not really about Anak Nakal.

In this case, it is. I go back and watch replays all the time, as much as you like to assume I don't.

[XIIPointStables]

Maybe I'll try and change the subject....

Dick Jerardi's column talks about the "light" Beyer for BB's Preakness. He mentioned that BB was eased in the throttle late by Kent.

But then to quote..."Would the colt have run faster if Desormeaux asked? Possibly. But the numbers are the numbers. If you believe, you believe. [in the numbers].

Possibly??? The horse is clearly geared down - aggressively even. Is he trying to tell us that we should take the 100 at its face? It could have been much higher right? Am I crazy in thinking this?

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by XIIPointStables

Maybe I'll try and change the subject....

Dick Jerardi's column talks about the "light" Beyer for BB's Preakness. He mentioned that BB was eased in the throttle late by Kent.

But then to quote..."Would the colt have run faster if Desormeaux asked? Possibly. But the numbers are the numbers. If you believe, you believe. [in the numbers].

Possibly??? The horse is clearly geared down - aggressively even. Is he trying to tell us that we should take the 100 at its face? It could have been much higher right? Am I crazy in thinking this?

I don't agree with this at all. I watched the Preakness again just yesterday and Kent shook him up pretty hard into the lane and only geared him down very late. I sincerely doubt he slowed him down much at all.

Originally Posted by XIIPointStables

Maybe I'll try and change the subject....

Dick Jerardi's column talks about the "light" Beyer for BB's Preakness. He mentioned that BB was eased in the throttle late by Kent.

But then to quote..."Would the colt have run faster if Desormeaux asked? Possibly. But the numbers are the numbers. If you believe, you believe. [in the numbers].

Possibly??? The horse is clearly geared down - aggressively even. Is he trying to tell us that we should take the 100 at its face? It could have been much higher right? Am I crazy in thinking this?

But he was so boxed in...
Unfairly.
It really Edgar's fault.