Random post-Derby thoughts

[blackthroatedwind]

He has to run at least one race that isn't below average for a supposed good horse. You can call this obstinacy on my part, but it really isn't, it's merely realism. His synthetic races are mediocre and his dirt race was no better. I am surprised that he even ran roughly as well on dirt, be it a sloppy track, as he did on the synthetics, but he surely didn't improve as many claimed he would.

[justindew]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

He has to run at least one race that isn't below average for a supposed good horse. You can call this obstinacy on my part, but it really isn't, it's merely realism. His synthetic races are mediocre and his dirt race was no better. I am surprised that he even ran roughly as well on dirt, be it a sloppy track, as he did on the synthetics, but he surely didn't improve as many claimed he would.

Andy, I respect your opinions. But this has to be the most vague answer to a specific question that I have ever seen on DT.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by justindew

Andy, I respect your opinions. But this has to be the most vague answer to a specific question that I have ever seen on DT.

Fair enough, but think of it historically. People talked about him as a TC kind of horse and he isn't even as fast as Giacomo.

[justindew]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Fair enough, but think of it historically. People talked about him as a TC kind of horse and he isn't even as fast as Giacomo.

Based on what? Beyer Speed Figures? Thoro-graph?

Here. I'll give you a few suggestions for the "POTN Standard".....

-Pioneerof The Nile must run a Beyer Speed Figure of 105 or higher on dirt in order for me to admit he is a "dirt horse."

-Pioneerof The Nile must win a Grade I on dirt.....

-Pioneerof The Nile must win any graded stakes race on dirt while earning a Beyer Speed Figure of 100 or higher...

[blackthroatedwind]

Speed figures certainly help. But it's also a matter of reasonable judgement of talent. Call this vague if you want but it's not necessarily definable.

[justindew]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Speed figures certainly help. But it's also a matter of reasonable judgement of talent. Call this vague if you want but it's not necessarily definable.

OK. That's fine. But it also means you will never have to admit you are wrong about POTN. Right?

Thus, this debate will always continue. Which is fine. I'm just sayin'.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by justindew

OK. That's fine. But it also means you will never have to admit you are wrong about POTN. Right?

Thus, this debate will always continue. Which is fine. I'm just sayin'.

Can you honestly say that while watching him down the stretch in the Derby you felt like you were watching a good horse?

[Bobby Fischer]

POTN was a terrible bet for the Derby.
He was probably one of the top 5 contenders, and possibly worse. He was bet to 6-1. He had little potential to run a big race.

We had a very odd Derby where 2 more talented horses had nightmare trips (FF, Dunkirk).

POTN finished 2nd in slow time, and needed a foul by his jockey to hold 2nd.

The people who said that Pioneer of the Nile had no value were correct. The result doesn't change that.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by justindew

OK. That's fine. But it also means you will never have to admit you are wrong about POTN. Right?

Thus, this debate will always continue. Which is fine. I'm just sayin'.

Certainly you realize I couldn't care less about admitting whether I am right or not.......right? I do it all the time....it's basically a given considering my job. If Pioneer of the Nile excedes my opinion of him I will certainly let you know.

I get it, I have a big ego, but it's so big that it allows me to readily admit when I am wrong.

[ateamstupid]

Nick and Andy both nailed it, and you've got it backwards. POTN was relatively slow before the Derby. People who hammered him to 6-1 were the ones making the assumption - that he'd improve on dirt. He had to in order to contend for the win. People who tossed him were simply saying that if he doesn't improve on dirt, which he didn't, he won't win. I don't call that "pure speculation."

And he's still relatively slow. He ran OK in the Derby and anyone who thinks he ran better has some explaining to do, not us. He was stomped by the winner, drifted out badly and should've been DQ'ed from 2nd.

The argument wasn't "he's going to suck on dirt" or "he won't be a dirt horse," it was "he'll have to be faster on dirt than he was on synthetic to win big dirt races." He still isn't. He's still an average three-year-old. Maybe that'll change in Pimlico, but he's still average, and how you think otherwise is puzzling.

[justindew]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Nick and Andy both nailed it, and you've got it backwards. POTN was relatively slow before the Derby. People who hammered him to 6-1 were the ones making the assumption - that he'd improve on dirt. He had to in order to contend for the win. People who tossed him were simply saying that if he doesn't improve on dirt, which he didn't, he won't win. I don't call that "pure speculation."

And he's still relatively slow. He ran OK in the Derby and anyone who thinks he ran better has some explaining to do, not us. He was stomped by the winner, drifted out badly and should've been DQ'ed from 2nd.

The argument wasn't "he's going to suck on dirt" or "he won't be a dirt horse," it was "he'll have to be faster on dirt than he was on synthetic to win big dirt races." He still isn't. He's still an average three-year-old. Maybe that'll change in Pimlico, but he's still average, and how you think otherwise is puzzling.

Ok. And if speed figures are the measure, and if they are accurate, then you are correct.

Although, I have to point out that a number of people (maybe not you) said he was a turf horse because he started his career on turf and Mott felt dirt was his 3rd-best surface.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Nick and Andy both nailed it, and you've got it backwards. POTN was relatively slow before the Derby. People who hammered him to 6-1 were the ones making the assumption - that he'd improve on dirt. He had to in order to contend for the win. People who tossed him were simply saying that if he doesn't improve on dirt, which he didn't, he won't win. I don't call that "pure speculation."

And he's still relatively slow. He ran OK in the Derby and anyone who thinks he ran better has some explaining to do, not us. He was stomped by the winner, drifted out badly and should've been DQ'ed from 2nd.

The argument wasn't "he's going to suck on dirt" or "he won't be a dirt horse," it was "he'll have to be faster on dirt than he was on synthetic to win big dirt races." He still isn't. He's still an average three-year-old. Maybe that'll change in Pimlico, but he's still average, and how you think otherwise is puzzling.

Let me jump in here because this BS has gone on long enough.

The position by both Serling and Beyer was that POTN was a BET AGAINST in the DERBY. They both explicitly stated that the way to make money, this year's strategy, was to NOT USE this horse. Whatever that might mean, it certainly WASN'T validated when the horse HIT THE BOARD.

Any ****in way you spin this, and the primary one is that the horse is SLOW, still doesn't account for the fact that the horse RAN 2nd. Doesn't matter who was in the race because these claims were made when IWR was still in the race---which means that POTN, AT WORST, runs 3rd.

For those whose handicapping is not driven by BEYERS and who basically have a clue when it comes to evaluating horses, they missed the mark. The horse is nothing special but he's not the rat they make him out to be.

And, P.S. those who don't bet POLY on a regular basis really shouldn't be commenting about it under the guise of experts.

Gimme a ****in break already.

[fpsoxfan]

First confrontational, now vague. I guess until you hear want you want to hear, no answer will be good enough for you.

[justindew]

Originally Posted by fpsoxfan

First confrontational, now vague. I guess until you hear want you want to hear, no answer will be good enough for you.

Um, I called your response "non-confrontational", and Andy admitted he was being vague.

Jesus. Can anyone on this website understand that not everyone is being a sarcastic a-hole? Can anyone read?

[fpsoxfan]

Originally Posted by justindew

Um, I called your response "non-confrontational", and Andy admitted he was being vague.

Jesus. Can anyone on this website understand that not everyone is being a sarcastic a-hole? Can anyone read?

Wow man. Relax. You seem like a good guy. It's just you asked a question and people are responding. Good luck in the Preakness!

[justindew]

Originally Posted by fpsoxfan

Wow man. Relax. You seem like a good guy. It's just you asked a question and people are responding. Good luck in the Preakness!

I'm not a good guy. I'm a very, very bad and dangerous man.