They were questioned, but not about the depth of the track, which can vary during a particular week. They
questioned how the depth affected the speed as I believe the author of the article was trying to say that tracks were faster years ago then they are now, which I think is a total fallacy. I know that years ago tracks had much more
cushion and were deeper to help prevent against wear and tear on the animal. Horses could race every week, whereas today they don’t because of a number of factors, one of which is that tracks seem to be very hard today compared to years ago.
It would be interesting to do a study of particular races
run at a particular track over decades that haven’t changed in distance. Eliminate the high and the low, per decade, and figure out an average for different distances and then compare their differences against each other. The proper way to do this would be to study and compare pars but you would have to have par charts for each year (which I believe are available) and these are
I totally agree, especially if he wins the Cigar.
I read that article and his findings were immediately disputed by several experts.
Tracks are also groomed and furled each week so that on some days they may be deeper than others.
IMO a good way to determine how fast Belmont is/was at certain times is to take a number of different stakes races that have been run at the same distance over 40-50-60 years. Take each decade and by eliminating the slowest time each decade (to compensate for off tracks) and the fastest time each decade so as not to be biased by an extremely fast time like Secretariat's Belmont Stakes; add the other eight and take an average time. It's not scientific but at least it gives us some sort of an idea.
Another way to find out is by studying track pars on a year to year basis. They should be available somewhere.
Always a great colt. Unfortunately we didn't see anywhere near his best in the BCC which is a shame. Eleven races I believe in three years of racing tells me that there were issues that most weren't aware of.
What did $$$ Mike Smith do in the 2009 Preakness with Mine That Bird? Where was his handicapping genius in that race?
I wasn't aware of dirt only. However, Private Zone and Rock Fall, even though both sprinters, have proven themselves more than once in G1's and I don't see where they aren't eligible. Either way, they are a much better choice than Effinex based on the quality of their work. Just my opinion.
Rjem I like your post.
IMO, American Pharoah walked the walk and danced most of the dances (three year old, not necessarily against older). Horses definitely aren’t made the way they used to make them and for all that AP accomplished in his career we must also remember that he too was injured and was laid up for quite a period of time, which is one of the reasons why he missed the BC Juvenile.
Drugs/meds mixed in with this so-called breeding for speed instead of endurance has changed the sport.
Then there is the big money being offered in so many stakes races, which is resulting in five horse fields for a half million dollar pot, which ultimately means that the quality of horses competing in these races is low. The demands aren’t as great and yet for the elite, the rewards are greater than they have ever been and so is the sense of accomplishment.
AP’s so called grand-slam, the TC plus the BCC, has only been tried once so in a way it is a poor measuring stick though it is an extremely lofty goal. A much better
measuring stick would be Easy Goer’s Belmont-Whitney-Travers-Woodward-JCGC (he missed the BCC by a neck) duplicate which could be tried every year though they would have to change the Woodward date. IMO,
that is much more difficult to win than a Triple Crown.
When looking back at Triple Crown history and discounting Sir Barton, who at the time ran before the Triple Crown was even thought about, when beginning with Gallant Fox, whenever a TC had been achieved there have been a flurry of them in that decade. In
the thirties we had Gallant Fox 1930, Omaha 1935 and War Admiral in 1937. In the forties, Whirlaway 1941, Count Fleet 1943, Assault 1946 and Citation in 1948.
In the seventies Secretariat 1973, Seattle Slew 1977 and Affirmed 1978. If we should get a TC winner or two in the
next 5-7 years then it will dampen down the enthusiasm of AP’s TC. If not and say we have to wait another 20
years or so and, and with so many new fans that don’t go back all that far, then the legend of American Pharoah will grow exponentially and when we have a top 100 horses of the first half of the 21st Century, AP will be voted #1 and his status dating back to 1900 will probably put him in the top three all time. A similar situation that we have with Frankel, a great horse, but he never ran against truly great horses.
Just my opinion.
I agree. I forgot about Tonalist. The others, simply put, no.
I agree. For many, the bar seems to be set lower and lower each year. Now that we're done with the "let's shorten the Triple Crown races so that we can get a Triple Crown winner" B.S., we're now looking at some who actually believe that a champion handicap horse could have its name added to a list of real champions on the strength of a pathetically weak campaign. There are others with much better qualifications like Honor Code and Liam's Map. If they aren't considered then don't declare a winner of the award this year.
I totally agree. With the defection of Liam’s Map and then the scratching of Beholder, the race was totally AP’s and as far as I’m concerned has to be among the weakest BCC’s ever. IMO, Honor Code on his best days was a
brilliant colt, but there has to be some reason why he only raced 11 times in 3 years and for his clunker in the made to order Kelso. This horse always had issues, but I believe they were much more profound than most of us think.
I still love American Pharoah and think that he is brilliant
and believe that if anything, he was cheated out of a legitimately high rating because of the weak competition he faced. But I’m not going to look through rose colored glasses and put him in he top ten, in fact, not even remotely close to it. He fits, based on his competition, somewhere between 25 and 50 (Bloodhorse, not HRN), but with the potential to be rated much higher if he would have faced some tougher competition with the
credentials to go along with it, the likes of a Cigar or Holy Bull or Easy Goer or Ghostzapper. And to think that some believe that if Effinex, a horse with a lone G2 win to its credit, lifetime, wins the Clark he could be voted the handicap champ this year just shows how muddled
horse racing is at present.
Copyright © 2010 -
other passionate horse racing fans!