Rabbit for Mine That Bird?

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

I'll ask it a different way: why would going slower early hurt a horse that's accustomed to running faster on the front end than horses accustomed to running from the rear of the pack, that are closer?

Oh heck.
Maybe because the horses that were held
back were not as good. There have been horses that
are not as good steal races from horses that are better
by doing something really strange...

Being in front till its too late for the others that decided to waddle.


1:15 and a half at six furlongs... cmon.

[Bobby Fischer]

Hard spun had the ability to set a moderately fast pace while well within himself and carry that speed a long long ways.
That changes the dynamics of the whole race.

This isn't a video game, where you can rate a high-cruiser like Hard Spun on crawling fractions, and his stamina will somehow translate to having tons of energy left for the turbo kick home.

Hard Spun runs better when allowed to run at his natural cruising speed, than he does when running a slow pace, he also sucks compared to others if the race is reduced to a contest of closing kicks.

Hard Spun couldn't have won anyway. Hard Spun shouldn't be confused as a better Belmont Stakes horse than Curlin or probably Rags to Riches, because they should beat him regardless of the dynamics. Rags to Riches clearly benefits in her face off with Curlin because of the race being slowed to a one-run contest, but HS's relative ability is no justification for Gomez's awful ride. Horses should get their best rides. Jockeys shouldn't go off on some sub-optimal freestyle.

It comes down to understanding the horse. Hard Spun is a horse that most horseplayers didn't have a good understanding of. I could even be wrong. I'm not, but it's possible. There should be a variety of opinions about the trips that Hard Spun got and how much was to blame on horrible rides vs. him being an "uncooperative" horse.

[chucklestheclown]

Originally Posted by Bobby Fischer

Hard spun had the ability to set a moderately fast pace while well within himself and carry that speed a long long ways.
That changes the dynamics of the whole race.

This isn't a video game, where you can rate a high-cruiser like Hard Spun on crawling fractions, and his stamina will somehow translate to having tons of energy left for the turbo kick home.

Hard Spun runs better when allowed to run at his natural cruising speed, than he does when running a slow pace, he also sucks compared to others if the race is reduced to a contest of closing kicks.

Hard Spun couldn't have won anyway. Hard Spun shouldn't be confused as a better Belmont Stakes horse than Curlin or probably Rags to Riches, because they should beat him regardless of the dynamics. Rags to Riches clearly benefits in her face off with Curlin because of the race being slowed to a one-run contest, but HS's relative ability is no justification for Gomez's awful ride. Horses should get their best rides. Jockeys shouldn't go off on some sub-optimal freestyle.

It comes down to understanding the horse. Hard Spun is a horse that most horseplayers didn't have a good understanding of. I could even be wrong. I'm not, but it's possible. There should be a variety of opinions about the trips that Hard Spun got and how much was to blame on horrible rides vs. him being an "uncooperative" horse.

WHAT? My $$$ will be on MTB.