Summer Bird could be HOY

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by CSC

It's not impossible to beat her if the race dynamics are similiar to the Preakness and or the Woodward. The Summer Bird we have seen the last 2 races would have given her alot of trouble, I find your reasoning confusing you like SB, you bet the crap out of him but you cannot entertain he can beat her, I know he would be more than a handful for her to handle given the right scenario. I give her credit for beating the likes of Macho Again and Mine That Bird in those 2 races but they are nowhere the horse that Summer Bird is, we can only hope these 2 will meet somewhere down the line, otherwise she can dine off of that Haskell win the rest of her career over SB until Jackson and Assmussen come to a consensus to try SB again.

i dont get how you give Rachel no credit for kicking the crap outta summer bird, and then say his last two races are this and that when she kicked the crap out of him the race before his last two races! Its like you feel he got SOOO much better between the Haskel and Travers when he is the same horse!

It makes no sense. She ran over the SAME horse who won the Travers and JCGC. SB is a real nice colt, but damn, the performance on the race track just doesnt cut it for ya does it?

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

It makes no sense. She ran over the SAME horse who won the Travers and JCGC. SB is a real nice colt, but damn, the performance on the race track just doesnt cut it for ya does it?

I sit here and I read this **** and I just shake my head. HOW EXACTLY is SB a 'real nice' horse? Or, even better than that, according to some? Who has he beaten? The older horses all suck. He got the best possible setup in the Belmont. And, he basically beat nothing in his past 2 races. The Travers field was a ****in joke. Unless, of course, we want to think along with all the 'speed' freaks that Quality Road is a superstar on anything other than a souped up speed favoring track.

I really want to see SB run in the Classic and try to ***** his way to another perfect trip against some of the more talented, long winded Euro's. Enough with this plug.

POLY will expose this plug for what it is: an OPPORTUNISTIC DIRT runner. Sooner or later all these horses have to show what they have on a FAIR surface. And, seeing how so many of the DIRT LOVERS are constantly whining about POLY, I guess they don't like their 'fast horses' getting bent over in fair races. Sucks when you're accustomed to betting the BIASED way. Times are changing.

He probably won over 7 figures with that 9/2 shot Saturday because he is strutting around here like a Steven H Crist/Andy Beyer love child.

To say Summer Bird is a plug is borderline retarded.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

I sit here and I read this **** and I just shake my head. HOW EXACTLY is SB a 'real nice' horse? Or, even better than that, according to some? Who has he beaten? The older horses all suck. He got the best possible setup in the Belmont. And, he basically beat nothing in his past 2 races. The Travers field was a ****in joke. Unless, of course, we want to think along with all the 'speed' freaks that Quality Road is a superstar on anything other than a souped up speed favoring track.

I really want to see SB run in the Classic and try to ***** his way to another perfect trip against some of the more talented, long winded Euro's. Enough with this plug.

POLY will expose this plug for what it is: an OPPORTUNISTIC DIRT runner. Sooner or later all these horses have to show what they have on a FAIR surface. And, seeing how so many of the DIRT LOVERS are constantly whining about POLY, I guess they don't like their 'fast horses' getting bent over in fair races. Sucks when you're accustomed to betting the BIASED way. Times are changing.

Wow! I get all this for calling SB a "real nice colt". What am I supposed to call the Belmont/Travers/JCGC winner? He sucks?

And I agree that he will not win the Classic. Every single post I've made about him and the classic were the same as what you just said.

He deserves credit for the races he's won. He's a real nice colt. He's no Rachel and he wont be winning the classic. The best turf horse out there will be winning the classic.

Why do you hate dirt so much and do you really feel that Poly plays like a dirt track more than a turf track? Poly is basically Turf II

[philcski]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

I sit here and I read this **** and I just shake my head. HOW EXACTLY is SB a 'real nice' horse? Or, even better than that, according to some? Who has he beaten? The older horses all suck. He got the best possible setup in the Belmont. And, he basically beat nothing in his past 2 races. The Travers field was a ****in joke. Unless, of course, we want to think along with all the 'speed' freaks that Quality Road is a superstar on anything other than a souped up speed favoring track.

I really want to see SB run in the Classic and try to ***** his way to another perfect trip against some of the more talented, long winded Euro's. Enough with this plug.

POLY will expose this plug for what it is: an OPPORTUNISTIC DIRT runner. Sooner or later all these horses have to show what they have on a FAIR surface. And, seeing how so many of the DIRT LOVERS are constantly whining about POLY, I guess they don't like their 'fast horses' getting bent over in fair races. Sucks when you're accustomed to betting the BIASED way. Times are changing.

You are so full of **** it flows out of your eyes.

I guess Easy Goer was a plug, too.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by philcski

You are so full of **** it flows out of your eyes.

I guess Easy Goer was a plug, too.

+1 One of the most assinine Fatman posts I have glanced at in awhile and that's saying something.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by CSC

+1 One of the most assinine Fatman posts I have glanced at in awhile and that's saying something.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by philcski

You are so full of **** it flows out of your eyes.

I guess Easy Goer was a plug, too.

Another behind the times dirt lover who can't come to grips with the NEW PARADIGM.

Kind of sucks that I can WIN, and win at a ridiculously HIGH RATE, playing POLY with NO FIGURES, doesn't it Phil?

My ****in ROI at WO, is RIDICULOUS, bro.

Put down the figures, and join the FAIR RACING club.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

Another behind the times dirt lover who can't come to grips with the NEW PARADIGM.

Kind of sucks that I can WIN, and win at a ridiculously HIGH RATE, playing POLY with NO FIGURES, doesn't it Phil?

My ****in ROI at WO, is RIDICULOUS, bro.

Put down the figures, and join the FAIR RACING club.

Do you read anything or just assume everything? How many times have I disparaged Beyer figures on here as useless and unimportant?

Slow horses, however, should not benefit from ANY surface, and the fact of the matter is SLOW horses win too many races on synthetics.

Quite frankly, I don't care what your ROI is at Woodbine, either.

[Revidere]

I make a motion to have another board. This Rachel Alexandra can do no wrong board is too full.

This is very disturbing. When RA beats a horse like Macho Again, it's a great achievment. When Summer Bird and Quality Road do it, a slow older horse is just a slow older horse and SB has just gotten lucky against some suspect fields. Hmmm. So, when Rachel beats Flashing by 20 lengths it's awe inspiring, even more so when Flashing wins the Test. But the beyer guys are noticeably silent when that Test victory earns a high 80's beyer. And since those guys like to crow about Zenyatta's low beyers and suspect competition, I can honestly say I'm confused about what a good horse is or what a bad horse is, what a fast horse is, or a slow horse is.

All I know is it's October and we've had some real nice performances this year. I would even venture to say it's been a really good year.

Can't we enjoy them all?

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Revidere

This is very disturbing. When RA beats a horse like Macho Again, it's a great achievment. When Summer Bird and Quality Road do it, a slow older horse is just a slow older horse

I would suggest perhaps making an effort to learn basic fundamental handicapping skills.


Trader Pete ... like everyone else with an IQ over 40 ... realized that Macho Again was the #1 horse to avoid type bet against coming out of Saratoga.

* Macho Again (Arrived at Saratoga off of a mediocre Grade 1 win in the Foster. His final time that day was 0.16 seconds slower than Miss Isella and Swift Temper went in a similarly paced Grade 2 stake on the same card - at the same distance. I know Miss Isella is a different kind of horse at Churchill and Swift Temper came back to beat Icon Project with a perfect trip next out - but it was still as soft a Grade 1 win as you'll see in the handicap division.

Got a great 116 pace figure to close into when 2nd in the Whitney. In the Woodward, he was more than 15 lengths off of the blistering 22.86 opening quarter .. 8 lengths further back than the horse racing 2nd to last at that stage. In spite of being positioned perfectly and getting a dream run through the pack without looping the field .. he hung badly and never looked like he was going to pass a very softened up Rachel Alexandra at any point. He's less than nothing special .. and his resume looks strong off of his last 3 races.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by philcski

Do you read anything or just assume everything? How many times have I disparaged Beyer figures on here as useless and unimportant?

Slow horses, however, should not benefit from ANY surface, and the fact of the matter is SLOW horses win too many races on synthetics.

Quite frankly, I don't care what your ROI is at Woodbine, either.

Maybe the problem, then, PHil, is what I've been alluding to all along: that the METHODOLOGY is flawed. Since these aren't time trials, with horses running individually or restricted to lanes, maybe the 'fastest' notion in terms of a number is not the way to go. If so many SLOW horses are winning on synthetics, then, I know that if I were a trainer or owner, I'd get my stock over there and win a whole bunch of races with my fast dirt horses. That this isn't happening sort of works against the methodology, don't you think?

I mean, arguing that these horses are SLOW is like the learned Jesuits of Galileo's era arguing for an Aristotelian view of the world because the CHURCH told them to save that view at all cost. What exactly is the excuse for all the BEYERITES here continuing to argue that these horses are SLOW? Time for a paradigm shift when your theory leads to ridiculous results.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

Maybe the problem, then, PHil, is what I've been alluding to all along: that the METHODOLOGY is flawed. Since these aren't time trials, with horses running individually or restricted to lanes, maybe the 'fastest' notion in terms of a number is not the way to go. If so many SLOW horses are winning on synthetics, then, I know that if I were a trainer or owner, I'd get my stock over there and win a whole bunch of races with my fast dirt horses. That this isn't happening sort of works against the methodology, don't you think?

I mean, arguing that these horses are SLOW is like the learned Jesuits of Galileo's era arguing for an Aristotelian view of the world because the CHURCH told them to save that view at all cost. What exactly is the excuse for all the BEYERITES here continuing to argue that these horses are SLOW? Time for a paradigm shift when your theory leads to ridiculous results.

Beyer's methodology is flawed in that the projection method has allowed the person in charge of assigning the number at each specific track too much leverage in massaging the numbers to make them "fit" what they think should have happened. If a number comes up "too fast" or "too slow" they allow themselves the liberty of splitting the variant multiple times to move the number. That being said, even if the numbers were accurate, it's up to the handicapper to determine how the prior trip affected the number and what today's trip will project. Betting speed figures, even good ones, blind is a road to the poor house- we agree on that. However, what they are supposed to do is separate the contenders from the pretenders. If a trip horse stepping up in class has never run a race within 5 lengths of a winning one for said new level, is he worth a bet at 3-1? 5-1? 10-1? 20-1? None whatsoever?

The problem I have with polytrack is with horses like Fatal Bullet- a horse I happen to like quite a bit having met the owner & trainer and the horse. He is a remarkably good horse on synthetics, obviously, with a record of 8 wins and 2 seconds in 10 starts including a great 2nd in last year's BC Sprint behind an absolute beast. The problem is, he can't even stand up on real dirt. His last two starts on dirt he's gone off at 5-1 and 6-1 and has been beaten a combined 34 lengths even though his early speed should work well on supposedly speed biased real dirt. How is this stuff supposed to be a replacement for dirt when the best horses in the world on poly can't run on real dirt? Conversely, Fabulous Strike, unquestionably one of the world's best sprinters- and beat Fatal Bullet like a drum at Saratoga on real dirt- clearly has problems on synthetic. There are very few Einsteins that perform admirably on both surfaces and a lot more Fatal Bullets and Fabulous Strikes.

[CSC]

[quote=Antitrust32]

i dont get how you give Rachel no credit for kicking the crap outta summer bird,

I love it when people refer to the Haskell as the defining race in the legacy of how much better(not my belief however)Rachel is to Summer Bird based on one isolated race, how's this scenario SB kicked the crap out of Macho Again in The JCGC, a horse that Rachel was life and death to beat in the Woodward a month earlier, thus Summer Bird must have improved(actually he has) since the Haskell that Rachel isn't in the same league as him now.(present tense)

That's the problem with looking at things in black and white. There is no medium ground, no room for common sense analysis. Just as it is illogical to not see that Summer Bird improved since The Haskell, that the track at Monmouth favored RA more than SB, and that that race was at 1 1/8 and not the 1 1/4 of the JCBC all at a time when he was still getting better.(present tense) You go keep believing RA is 7 lengths better than Summer Bird is, that's cool with me, and I'll go on not believing that Summer Bird is 10 lengths better the RA since he beat Macho Again by pole Sat. Which makes more sense?