Can someone explain the Colonel John silliness to me?

[Thunder Gulch]

Tiznow may look like a Synthetic sire because all of those Cal-breds at Delmar, Hollywood, and Santa Anita. Tiznow himself won the Breeders Cup classic dirt race at Churchill downs covering 10f.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Slew's Tizzy, Bear Now, Well Armed, Tough Tiz's Sis, Colonel John, .... all very good synthetic horses - and that's just off the top of my head.

[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.

[the_fat_man]

Silliness is looking at someone else's figures and assuming they're comprehensive. Try to formulate an opinion of a horse without thinking in terms of Beyers. Bet you can't.

This is very typical in the presently dominating IMPLANT mode of handicapping.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

Silliness is looking at someone else's figures and assuming they're comprehensive. Try to formulate an opinion of a horse without thinking in terms of Beyers. Bet you can't.

This is very typical in the presently dominating IMPLANT mode of handicapping.

Fat Man 10,000% correct.

Imagine what the resume of the guy who makes Beyer or Bris, etc,... figs for your track looks like. Chances are he ain't matriculated from MIT.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

They don't need to be.

I think a computer makes the BRIS figs...and it's not like people don't question a lot of figures that aren't cut and dry and straight forward.

It's rarely wise to just neglect how fast a horse has been running.

[Charismatic1]

Just off the top of my head...

Tiz Wonderful - 2 time graded stakes winner at Churchill where Tiznow won the Classic.
Folklore - Champion 2yo filly (all on dirt). BC Juvy Fils and Matron won at Belmont, where her daddy won the Classic.

Tiznow clearly struggles to get top class dirt horses, especially at places where he succeeded.

[slotdirt]

Could it not be possible that Tiznow is potentially a pretty versatile sire whose runners are apt on a variety of different surfaces? I don't think that's entirely implausible.