Is ThoroGraph willing to share what Frankel\'s sheet looked like heading into the Queen Anne?
Guess Frankel does not want to visit the adopted home of his namesake:
\"We will leave our options open now. He will tell me what to do, I don\'t tell him. Will he go abroad? It\'s very unlikely,\" added Cecil.
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2012/06/19/sports/19reuters-horse-racing-ascot.html?hp
That\'s a strange bit of editing they decided to do to that quote, truncating it so markedly. Here, courtesy of Bloodhorse, is the entire quote:
Cecil told reporters, \"I\'m not surprised but relieved, no horse is a certainty. He\'s a great horse, he did exactly what I thought he would but he\'s still improving.\"
\"It looks like he\'ll stay a mile and a quarter, he\'s in the Eclipse, Sussex Stakes, and Juddmonte, we\'ll feel our way and he\'ll tell me what to do.\"
\"It\'s very unlikely he\'ll go for the Breeders\' Cup,\" Cecil added.
Read more on BloodHorse.com: http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/70659/undefeated-frankel-wins-queen-anne-by-11#ixzz1yG1beAfF
This horse is unbelievable. Winner by 11 lengths. Black Caviar runs closing day, Saturday.
\"That\'s a strange bit of editing they decided to do to that quote, truncating it so markedly.\"
Well, it\'s Reuters and it\'s after lunch, and they start pretty early over there.
I laughed
Frankle could be better than Secretariat. What an awesome horse.
He even lost a shoe during the running! FREAK!
Seriously? Geesh. This horse is legend.
Here we go: video available now down the page http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/70659/undefeated-frankel-wins-queen-anne-by-11
And here\'s about 10 minutes with Peter Moody and Black Caviar in England. Note that Black Caviar is wearing her compression suit when out for the press. Probably would be Banned in New York.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tNegDe7Ej7A#!
It\'s official. Timeform are rating Frankel on 147. That\'s 2lb higher than Sea-Bird and the best by any horse ever...
magicnight Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, it\'s Reuters and it\'s after lunch, and they
> start pretty early over there.
Very funny and true.
Doesn\'t make them bad guys, though. Q>--|
The way he separated from the field in the last quarter was electric. Anyone know how fast he finished. Euros not too big on split info.
Damn! Just saw the replay for the first time. Unreal!
http://www.racingpost.com/news/live.sd?event_id=179183
Hard to believe the others are even thoroughbreds. Is he that good? ;-)
Time to come to America and try and win the Classic on dirt?
Or, is that too much to ask?
Why bother?
Because you want to be known as the greatest ever and you can\'t be known as the greatest ever if you only run on turf in your homeland?
You don\'t need dirt, or the USA, to be known as the greatest ever.
I think you do. Otherwise, you\'re just the greatest European turf horse ever.
What if Secretariat, Seattle Slew, Affirmed, Spectacular Bid or Rachel Alex went to
Europe and bombed on the turf? No longer great horses? Just great American Dirt
horses?
What if All Along, who won 4 Grade 1 grass stakes in four countries in 40 days, was
tried on dirt and was not brilliant? No longer a great mare, merely a great turf mare?
I do not agree. And here is a confession: I have never watched Frankel run, but
hearing some of the praise on this board, from people whose opinion I respect, I am
fairly certain he is a great horse, no mention of surface necessary.
Frankel has nothing to prove, and nobody seems to mention the possibility that he
would run in the BC Turf Classic (or Turf Mile).
Understand what your saying Plastic, but don\'t agree. Maybe we need to reconvene
the \"Greatness Committee\". Your argument also brings up the question of why there has
not been an all Turf Breeder\'s Cup run in Europe yet.
Didnt Secretariat win on the turf in a foreign country?
I\'m not saying Frankel isnt a fine specimen, but to be considered an all time great horse, don\'t you have to come out of your comfort zone, even a little bit?
Everyone criticized Zenyatta and said she stayed in her comfort zone too much and now, Frankel does the same thing and its ok?
Turf, not dirt, is the racing surface of the vast majority of the world. Turf is the surface to \"take on all comers\". Frankel has nothing to prove on a different surface.
As far has his \"comfort zone\", that is a point to consider. Frankel is a stunningly brilliant 7F-miler, who is going to stretch out to 1 1/4 now that he\'s four, against all older horses, carrying weight. He\'s undefeated at two, at three, at four. Seven Grade 1\'s, a Grade 2, a Grade 3. Variety of venues, straight and curved tracks.
Here\'s his race record and videos.
http://www.horseracingnation.com/horse/Frankel
Horse Born Rating
Frankel 2008 147
Sea Bird 1962 145
Brigadier Gerard 1968 144
Tudor Minstrel 1944 144
Abernant 1946 142
Ribot 1952 142
Mill Reef 1968 141
Dancing Brave 1983 140
Dubai Millennium 1996 140
Harbinger 2006 140
Sea The Stars 2006 140
Shergar 1978 140
Vaguely Noble 1965 140
Generous 1988 139
Pappa Fourway 1952 139
Reference Point 1984 139
Alleged 1974 138
Alycidon 1945 138
Celtic Swing 1992 138
Cigar 1990 138
Daylami 1994 138
Exbury 1959 138
Nijinsky 1967 138
Star of India 1953 138
Tulloch 1954 138
Easy Goer 1986 137
Sunday Silence 1986 137
Apalachee 1971 137
Dayjur 1987 137
Ghostzapper 2000 137
Grundy 1972 137
Kingston Town 1976 137
Mark of Esteem 1993 137
Molvedo 1958 137
Montjeu 1996 137
Moorestyle 1977 137
Never Say Die 1951 137
Peintre Celebre 1994 137
Pinza 1950 137
Princely Gift 1951 137
Ragusa 1960 137
Rheingold 1969 137
Reliance 1962 137
Right Boy 1954 137
Troy 1976 137
Zilzal 1986 137
Alcide 1955 136
Allez France 1970 136
Ballymoss 1954 136
Bering 1983 136
Black Tarquin 1945 136
Bustino 1971 136
Crepello 1954 136
El Condor Pasa 1995 136
El Gran Senor 1981 136
Floribunda 1958 136
Gentlemen 1992 136
Habibti 1980 136
Hafiz 1952 136
Hawk Wing 1999 136
Helissio 1993 136
Herbager 1956 136
My Babu 1945 136
Manikato 1975 136
Northjet 1977 136
Old Vic 1986 136
Relko 1960 136
Slip Anchor 1982 136
Suave Dancer 1988 136
Sakhee 1997 136
Tantieme 1947 136
Texana 1955 136
Thatch 1970 136
Warning 1985 136
All Along 1979 135
Arazi 1989 135
Arbar 1944 135
Arctic Prince 1948 135
Black Caviar 2006 136
Chanteur 1942 135
Charlottesville 1957 135
Coronation 1946 135
Dahlia 1970 135
Intikhab 1994 135
Known Fact 1977 135
Kris 1976 135
La Tendresse 1959 135
Le Moss 1975 135
Match II 1958 135
Nashwan 1986 135
Never So Bold 1980 135
Pebbles 1981 135
Petingo 1965 135
Petoski 1982 135
Right Royal 1958 135
Royal Anthem 1995 135
Sagace 1980 135
Sassafras 1967 135
Shadeed 1982 135
Shahrastani 1983 135
Shareef Dancer 1980 135
Sicambre 1948 135
Sir Ivor 1965 135
Souverain 1943 135
St Jovite 1989 135
Supreme Court 1948 135
Teenoso 1980 135
Tenerani 1944 135
The Bug 1943 135
The Minstrel 1974 135
Trempolino 1984 135
Youth 1973 135
plasticman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Didnt Secretariat win on the turf in a foreign
> country?
Canada. Secretariat had a two race turf career at the end of his 3YO campaign:
in those races he beat the best turf runners in North America. I think in the Man of
War he ran 1-1/2 miles in 2:24 flat, an American turf record which stood for a long
time.
>
> I\'m not saying Frankel isnt a fine specimen, but
> to be considered an all time great horse, don\'t
> you have to come out of your comfort zone, even a
> little bit?
As a 4YO, Spectacular Bid set track records at seven furlongs and ten furlongs,
carrying significant weight. Forego carried plenty of lead and was very effective at
distances from 7f to 10f. There was no outcry for either of these two all time greats
to run on turf, either in North America or \"over there\"
>
> Everyone criticized Zenyatta and said she stayed
> in her comfort zone too much and now, Frankel does
> the same thing and its ok?
I think alot of people who criticized Zenyatta should look more closely at her record
in Breeder\'s Cup races. Probably tough for her, unfortunately, to pass muster with
the Greatness Committee, some members of whom might be Shirreffs/Synthetic haters,
but this was an exceptional mare. She almost won two consecutive BC Classics, making
the claim that she \"ducked\" serious competition rather untenable.
Getting up for 1 tough race a year is not my (or most peoples) definition of greatness.
As long as it satisfies the Zenyatta lovers, fine, don\'t worry about us.
Talk about Voodoo figures..
Sekrah:
Sorry,not biting. Have a great day!
Rich
Yep. GZ 10pts back of all time best? 1 pt Slower! than Cigar. Lmao.
Might be fun to see the TG top for these horses, if available.
(Since TGJB and crew have nothing to do but wait for arcane
requests to emerge from the Forum.)
How far back do TG numbers go, anyway?
And they American horses from the past 25 years on there, but not Secretariat or Spectacular Bid. Surely either of the World Records would rank among the ten all-time best performances.
Not trying to get anyone to bite. Just saying, getting up for 1 tough race a year does not impress me, nor should it impress anybody. Any Giacomo can win the Ky Derby.. It\'s Triple Crown winners that are considered among the greatest of all time.
Greatness is beating the best in your sport, repeatedly. When you only face the best in your sport once a year, it\'s simply not nearly as impressive.
I\'m unclear who this applies to?
Zenyatta.. The most overrated animal this generation (and likely any future generations) will ever see.
I respectfully disagree. The most overrated animal I\'ve ever seen - Lassie.
Lassie went to school with the kids and then found her way back home. It was like a few blocks away! Come on. Dogs find their way home across hundreds of miles. I have a dog and she is learning how to drive. So the most overrated animal is definitely Lassie and not Zenyatta. Not even close.
HP
Timeforms were not created for American horses at that time. I merely posted them as reference for how that system rates different horses you may be familiar with.
sekrah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Zenyatta.. The most overrated animal this
> generation (and likely any future generations)
> will ever see.
Geezus, 18 months later and you still can\'t let it go.
Just give it a rest already.
Doesnt it actually take ONE person to \'rate her highly\' for her to be \'overrated;? There are so many people bashing Z and saying that she\'s overrated, that she actually becomes UNDERRATED because of all the bashing. That\'s how the rating system works.
In order to be overrated you actually have to have enough people think you\'re great....in Z\'s case, there are plenty of people who think she\'s not that good (for whatever reason) which means she can\'t really be overrated.
The people who show up at Hollywood with the signs and face paint arent \'rating\' her. They love her as a \"human\" and arent in the \'rating\' business. Z gets \'rated\' by people like yourself and other \'pundits\' on message boards and the overwhelming sentiment is that she\'s \'not as good as people say\'.
Problem is, there are just as many people who are saying she\'s not that good as there are people who are saying she IS good/great.
To me, its a wash and she\'s either rated \'correctly\' or, she\'s underrated. No way she\'s overrated according to my math.
HP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I respectfully disagree. The most overrated
> animal I\'ve ever seen - Lassie.
>
> Lassie went to school with the kids and then found
> her way back home. It was like a few blocks away!
> Come on. Dogs find their way home across
> hundreds of miles. I have a dog and she is
> learning how to drive. So the most overrated
> animal is definitely Lassie and not Zenyatta. Not
> even close.
>
>
I really don\'t know how you can distinguish Lassie from Rin Tin Tin. Clearly we are parsing fine lines of overrated here. It reminds me of the scene from \"Manhattan,\" when the Diane Keaton and Michael Murphy characters were talking about their \"Academy of Overrated\" which included Mahler, Lenny Bruce, Jung and F. Scott Fitzgerald. To that list, we can add Lassie, Rin Tin Tin and Zenyatta. Lack of objective standards appears to be no barrier to such claims. It\'s similar to Justice Stewart\'s famous quote on \"pornography\" -- he knows it when he sees it.
Speaking of pornography, I\'ve seen some things that were supposedly \"XXX\" and they were definitely overrated.
BB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Speaking of pornography, I\'ve seen some things
> that were supposedly \"XXX\" and they were
> definitely overrated.
By one \"X\" or two?
Two. As with sheet nomenclature, I would have rated it an \"X\", a non-effort.
Yes I know this is a handicapping board so last shot...
On top of being overrated, Lassie ALSO a union thug. Screen Actors Guild. Constantly demanding more beef to get on the set.
HP
Rick B. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> How far back do TG numbers go, anyway?
I think there might be figs for Rome\'s chariot events starting around 500 BC, but they wouldn\'t be in the computer, papyrus only.
Right you are, HP, so I\'ll sign off with this one. I wanted pretty much the same thing that Lassie did, only, rather than beef, more cheese on the set.
1982, Rick. Check the Derby part of the archives.
I\'m talking in terms of how the media was promoting her as the greatest thing to ever exist in horse racing.
There\'s non-horse racing people who know who Zenyatta is from the endless stupid stories done on the network news and ESPN. Probably 0% of them know who Ghostzapper or Cigar were.
BB wrote:
\"As with sheet nomenclature, I would have rated it an \'X,\' a non-effort.\"
What amazes me is that those guys don\'t get more \"quit\" numbers.
The media promoting her has nothing to do with how good she actually is in context with the all time greats. The media is promoting a winning streak, its great for horse racing, it might get some people who wouldnt otherwise go to a racetrack to go to a racetrack. Not everyone cares about hard core handicapping stuff and whether Zenyatta is the 17th best all time horse or the 29th according to the moneyball version of horse racing. Its all opinion anyway.
They\'re promoting her because she won races consecutively.
Dan Uggla had a 33 game hitting streak. If he had somehow miraculously gotten the streak to 50 games, the stadiums would have been packed to see possible history. Nobody in the stadium or watching at home would suggest he\'s even 1/10th the player Joe Dimaggio is...yet, Uggla would have packed stadiums, and those packed stadiums would have been good for the game of baseball....however briefly it may have been,
Same with Zenyatta....she brought new fans to the sport. Whether they STAYED fans is an entirely different debate....i dont think the \'attention\' she got was anyone trying to convince anyone else she\'s the best horse ever. She might be THEIR best horse ever, but nobody was sticking her in the top 2 or 3 \'best ever\' debate......they left that up to people like us, hard core horseplayers on message boards to decide.
I \"get\" your frustration, i really do and i understand it. It is a little frustrating to see people who havent sweated blood and tears in this game as a serious horseplayer just come in and \'proclaim\' something without having gone thru the ringer like hardcore types have. \"How dare they\" make a statement about her greatness without checking with US first to see if we approve and how dare they make such bold statements without having decades in this game trying to really learn it inside and out like we have. I get that part.
People just want to have some fun and bandwagon around on the next \'good thing\'. Long after Z is gone there will be some other horse who wins 15 (or more) in a row and then the media calls THAT horse the next \'best ever\'. I\'m glad they\'re creating a buzz around ANY horse because any thought that there might be one dollar in the betting pools that\'s NOT from a supercomputer group using sophisticated speed figures and betting 300 wagers in a billionth of a second and creating an incredibly efficient betting market is sure a welcome thought for my weary brain.
If \'newbie\' bettors want to believe Z is the best thing since sliced bread, they can be my guest...the more the merrier!
plasticman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The media promoting her has nothing to do with how
> good she actually is in context with the all time
> greats. The media is promoting a winning streak,
> its great for horse racing, it might get some
> people who wouldnt otherwise go to a racetrack to
> go to a racetrack. Not everyone cares about hard
> core handicapping stuff and whether Zenyatta is
> the 17th best all time horse or the 29th according
> to the moneyball version of horse racing. Its all
> opinion anyway.
>
> They\'re promoting her because she won races
> consecutively.
>
> Dan Uggla had a 33 game hitting streak. If he had
> somehow miraculously gotten the streak to 50
> games, the stadiums would have been packed to see
> possible history. Nobody in the stadium or
> watching at home would suggest he\'s even 1/10th
> the player Joe Dimaggio is...yet, Uggla would have
> packed stadiums, and those packed stadiums would
> have been good for the game of baseball....however
> briefly it may have been,
>
> Same with Zenyatta....she brought new fans to the
> sport. Whether they STAYED fans is an entirely
> different debate....i dont think the \'attention\'
> she got was anyone trying to convince anyone else
> she\'s the best horse ever. She might be THEIR best
> horse ever, but nobody was sticking her in the top
> 2 or 3 \'best ever\' debate......they left that up
> to people like us, hard core horseplayers on
> message boards to decide.
>
> I \"get\" your frustration, i really do and i
> understand it. It is a little frustrating to see
> people who havent sweated blood and tears in this
> game as a serious horseplayer just come in and
> \'proclaim\' something without having gone thru the
> ringer like hardcore types have. \"How dare they\"
> make a statement about her greatness without
> checking with US first to see if we approve and
> how dare they make such bold statements without
> having decades in this game trying to really learn
> it inside and out like we have. I get that part.
>
> People just want to have some fun and bandwagon
> around on the next \'good thing\'. Long after Z is
> gone there will be some other horse who wins 15
> (or more) in a row and then the media calls THAT
> horse the next \'best ever\'. I\'m glad they\'re
> creating a buzz around ANY horse because any
> thought that there might be one dollar in the
> betting pools that\'s NOT from a supercomputer
> group using sophisticated speed figures and
> betting 300 wagers in a billionth of a second and
> creating an incredibly efficient betting market is
> sure a welcome thought for my weary brain.
>
> If \'newbie\' bettors want to believe Z is the best
> thing since sliced bread, they can be my
> guest...the more the merrier!
There are some very knowledgeable people, some that have seen some of the greats, people that have been around the game for many years that feel that Zenyatta is amongst the best fillies/mares they have seen.
For some on this board to proclaim those people don\'t know what they are talking about, while at the same time trying to tell the rest of us that their opinion is the only one that counts, is the height of arrogance.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the constant cynical point of view is tired.
Sekrah hates her, we get it.
sekrah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I\'m talking in terms of how the media was
> promoting her as the greatest thing to ever exist
> in horse racing.
No not the greatest thing to ever exist, but certainly one of the great horses of her
era. Three times female HOY, one time HOY, BC Distaff winner, a win and a nose defeat
in the BC Classic. She was something slightly more than a media creation.
> There\'s non-horse racing people who know who
> Zenyatta is from the endless stupid stories done
> on the network news and ESPN. Probably 0% of
> them know who Ghostzapper or Cigar were.
There are a lot of folks who wouldn\'t know about Seabiscuit, Phar Lap and Secretariat
if they hadn\'t made movies about them.
Who is going to play Bobby Frankel in the eagerly awaited Ghostzapper movie?
I watched Affirmed, Alydar, Spectacular Bid, Seattle Slew and Forego all race in the
1970s.
Two or three decades later, I watched GZ, Cigar and Skip Away.
There is a reason they are listed in two separate paragraphs. In my opinion, there
are 2 words which would aptly describe the horses in the second paragraph if they
raced against the champions from the 70s.
Those words would be \"also ran\".
Think Plastic got it right. The Z hype was very good for the game and the \"westies\" squeezed the Z lemon dry(easties would have done the same had she campaigned on the east)
The debate part that her critics have is more about who she beat,where she beat them and how fast she consistently ran.
Z, without question, one the most consistent horses of all time at the top level, one of the greatest,if not the greatest, females of all time, not nearly one of the fastest of all time.
Mike
Belmont cancelled,New York hotter than hell today.
We\'re getting saturated with stories about the downside of horse racing in the New York Times. Yesterday\'s front page had the frog story. So a story about Zenyatta being great isn\'t the worst thing to happen for the sport in the mainstream media. Mainstream coverage is never on the \"expert\" level we see on this board! We need all the feel good stories we can get.
HP
Richie-- wrong question. Who\'s going to play the real star-- Steve Allday?
No.. Not even the greatest of her era IMO. Not close.
sekrah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No.. Not even the greatest of her era IMO. Not
> close.
You\'ve made 5 different comments in this thread, all saying the same thing.
Zenyatta is overrated.
Is it Ok for someone else to give their opinion, without you making yet another comment saying the same thing over and over that goes against what someone else thinks??
Everyone on this board has a clear understanding on your feelings about Zenyatta, you are certainly entitled to them. But we get it already.
Sekrah - Alzheimer\'s? that\'s 101 times you\'ve said the same thing. 4 times on this thread alone.
sekrah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No.. Not even the greatest of her era IMO. Not
> close.
Not trying to keep this thing going but I have a question?
What would qualify as her Era? Is it a 10 year time frame, 1990-1999, 2000-2009, etc..What is the definition of an Era?
Also...has anyone here noticed that fillies have been killers the past three years winning horse of the year..This year Royal Delta looks ready to keep that streak going..Anyone else find this unusual?
Pdub-- you were writing that to him, but it also applies to yourself. How do you figure it goes, everyone gets one post on a subject and you get one for every one of theirs you disagree with?
There were other people on this string that disagreed with him but had something to say other than \"I disagree so shut up\". Which you say to someone pretty much every time Mike Smith or Z comes up.
I don\'t know if you want to do a search on this, but my guess is there are 4 times as many Pdub posts with the word Zenyatta in it as Sekrah\'s (or anyone else\'s).
\"Also...has anyone here noticed that fillies have been killers the past three years winning horse of the year..This year Royal Delta looks ready to keep that streak going..Anyone else find this unusual?\"
Don\'t forget Black Cavier, and the fact that two of the last four winners of the Arc were fillies. Maybe it\'s Title IX crossing over to the equine gals.
The best fillies can compete with the best colts. When has that ever been different in horse racing? It\'s always been fairly unique to horse racing that girls can be as fast as boys. The media (and race callers like Durkin) have orgasms everytime a filly beats a colt as if it\'s never happened before.
The year she won the BC.. she wasn\'t even the most impressive female horse THAT YEAR!. How could I put her in a class with the greatest of all time when she wasn\'t even the fastest female horse that year, nor the most accomplished.
As far as P-Dub.. I suggest you just ignore my posts if you don\'t like what I\'m saying. From now until the end of the year, you\'ll probably see a negative comment from me towards Zenyatta somewhere between 0 and 20 times, depending on how often someone brings up how \"great\" she was. We know you have a blind love fest with anything west coast related. Any criticism of anyone from California is considered sin in your world. It\'s pointless for me to continue to respond to your arguments that don\'t stand up to the facts.
sekrah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The best fillies can compete with the best colts.
> When has that ever been different in horse racing?
> It\'s always been fairly unique to horse racing
> that girls can be as fast as boys. The media
> (and race callers like Durkin) have orgasms
> everytime a filly beats a colt as if it\'s never
> happened before.
Agreed..But 3 years in a row, although I still can\'t believe Z beat Blame in that voting but regardless..3 years staright with different fillies??
>
> The year she won the BC.. she wasn\'t even the most
> impressive female horse THAT YEAR!. How could I
> put her in a class with the greatest of all time
> when she wasn\'t even the fastest female horse that
> year, nor the most accomplished.
>
Definitely don\'t have her in that category...very good though...
That\'s the point. Nobody would argue with very good. But that\'s a different issue than \"greatest\" or even one of them. And she can be very good or even great and still be overrated.
And by the way, I\'m still waiting for someone to answer a question Miff asked here a long time ago-- someone explain exactly what she did to deserve HOTY the year she won. That\'s not a lifetime achievement award.
Sekrah, this thread was supposed to be about Frankel.
Well someone made a comment about critics of Zenyatta should look at her resume again and I responded to that.
\"critics of Zenyatta should look at her resume again and I responded to that\"
Sek,
Neutral on Z as being an all time great horse(not female) but her resume reads 19 out of 20, 17 straight wins and her loss to the BC male field by a head.
Whats wrong with the resume, forget about anything else.
Mike
Maybe it\'s just me, but after, give-or-take, a zillion posts on Zenyatta, I still get the feeling the points being discussed front other issues that people are invested in, more so than the horse herself. Nothing will be conclusive, but she was pretty darn good. So is Frankel. I\'ll save more definitive opinions for the next race.
I apologize guys, i was the one who mentioned Z in my post, i was the first one who brought her name into this discussion. I tried to make the point that Z was roundly criticized for staying with a \'comfortable\' schedule but now that Frankel is doing it, well, its ok because he\'s the \'greatest ever\'.
My original point was that i\'d like to see Frankel here, in the states, on dirt at a mile and a quarter vs the best we have to offer. He\'s still a wonderful horse if he never comes to America, and he\'s still a wonderful horse if he never races on dirt, but if you want to be the greatest ever, i think you have to have some adversity and actually get out and show some different dimensions. At least in my book.
Was there somewhere i read that Andy Beyer said that Secretariat\'s Belmont Beyer would have been 139? You have to imagine he would have broken negative 7 on the T graph scale also if 139 is indeed what Beyer would have hung on him.
I\'ve been following this horse, and I have to admit I\'m a fan! But he\'s untested beyond a mile on the turf. The trainer has very little interest (IMO) in returning to SA where I believe his ex wife resides......(I have an LAX story for ya Rich Curtis.....)
Had the Breeders Cup Mile been run at CD or BEL this year, I think he shows up and wins going away at 1-9 and maybe, perhaps, in a wild dream - he tries for Goldikova\'s record........
Anyway, great race horse. Good for racing all around..........
Don\'t apologize plastic. The Zenyatta myth about her greatness should be exposed.
Frankel is entered in the Eclipse July 7th 1 1/4, where he may meet up with So You Think, who just won his 10th Group 1 in the Prince of Wales at Ascot. That would be an outstanding matchup.
Frankel also entered in the Sussex 8/1 at 1 mile, and the Juddmonte 8/22 at 1 1/4.
sighthound Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Frankel is entered in the Eclipse July 7th 1 1/4,
> where he may meet up with So You Think, who just
> won his 10th Group 1 in the Prince of Wales at
> Ascot. That would be an outstanding matchup.
>
> Frankel also entered in the Sussex 8/1 at 1 mile,
> and the Juddmonte 8/22 at 1 1/4.
Come on, didn\'t you know this was a Zenyatta thread? You remember her...classic hero? Shunned by one...
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pdub-- you were writing that to him, but it also
> applies to yourself. How do you figure it goes,
> everyone gets one post on a subject and you get
> one for every one of theirs you disagree with?
>
> There were other people on this string that
> disagreed with him but had something to say other
> than \"I disagree so shut up\". Which you say to
> someone pretty much every time Mike Smith or Z
> comes up.
>
> I don\'t know if you want to do a search on this,
> but my guess is there are 4 times as many Pdub
> posts with the word Zenyatta in it as Sekrah\'s (or
> anyone else\'s).
He offers nothing new to the discussion.
She\'s overrated. She gets up for 1 race a year.
I\'ve never said \'I disagree so shut up\", where the hell you get that I have no idea. If he has something to add, great.
Its also funny JB, that when you feel I have an answer to every post about Z or Smith, you make a specific point to tell me about it.
This guy does the exact same thing, and you sit idly by and let him drone on and on.
So just tell me there are 2 sets of rules. Sekrah gets to rattle on incessantly, and you say nothing. I repeatedly defend something or someone and you chime in \"thats enough\".
Is Sekrah\'s last name Brown?? At least that would explain the kid glove treatment he receives for basically doing the exact same thing you want to criticize about me.
HP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sekrah - Alzheimer\'s? that\'s 101 times you\'ve
> said the same thing. 4 times on this thread
> alone.
Hey HP, I said the same thing. You\'ll be getting a post telling you to knock it off.
It\'s JBs board.
Take comfort in the fact that it doesn\'t really matter what anyone says. It\'s all just blah, blah, blah. I try not to get married to my opinions. I\'m not that important. I\'ve been wrong enough to have learned that. The Z people made plenty of money and got plenty of accolades and nothing anyone says changes that. You can stamp your feet all day and she\'s still Horse of the Year. Whether you like her or not. If it makes the guy happy going on about it let him have his fun. Meaningless.
HP
\"At least that would explain the kid glove treatment he receives\"
Paul,
Only one guy gets kid glove treatment here,errrr....me, of course! Actually JB pretty fair in taking bullshit,abuses everyone equally.Horse players passionate about their opinions and it\'s a good thing we differ.
Posts should be limited to careful,thoughtful,polite prose...like mine.Know HP agrees.
Mike
Over on the TwinSpires blog, I took a look (http://j.mp/NZBAlT) at Franke\'s place in history using Brisnet.com\'s Class Ratings, which is sort of a riff on the \"who beat who and by how much\" motif made popular by The Jockey Club\'s Performance Rates that Thoroughbred Times publishes.
Anyway, Workforce has the highest rating of all time as the only horse to crack the 130 barrier, but Frankel\'s steady stream of 125+ numbers IS impressive and about equal with Sea The Stars and Ghostzapper in my mind.
LINK: http://j.mp/NZBAlT
Mike you put up good ones so I can wade through a few of the others. No one bats 1.000. Have a great weekend!
HP
I love NY, no joke.
Enough.
I\'m not going to get into that today, too hot, but if Rich Curtis sees that he can.
Beyer\'s Secretariat number was a publicity stunt. The number is worthless. Beyer might as well have gone with the first number that Geraldo Rivera saw written on the wall of Al Capone\'s vault.
Beyer linked his database to par in the 1970s. He cannot go home again. He cannot compare old to new. What he tried to do with that Secretariat number was akin to following a trail of breadcrumbs across the Pacific Ocean.
The proper response to any mention of that figure is laughter.
Rich-- why don\'t you explain the par thing, as well as the two turns at Belmont...
\"Beyer linked his database to par in the 1970s. He cannot go home again. He cannot compare old to new. What he tried to do with that Secretariat number was akin to following a trail of breadcrumbs across the Pacific Ocean\'
Rich,
Yeah, what would Andy Beyer know about making numbers anyway.On the other hand, the geniuses that made sheet figs at the time claim that Secretariat ran a fig like a TG neg -2.75 in the Derby and only paired that same TG -2.75 fig in the Belmont,guess Sham regressed about 15 points.
Brilliant!!!
Mike
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rich-- why don\'t you explain the par thing,
Never mind, Rich, I got this.
Par is what JB and I don\'t get on the Spa golf course in August.
Actually, there\'s a ball sitting on the tee right now for Mr. Curtis that he could absolutely crush if he was so inclined.
What Beyer knows about figures now and what he knew then are two different ballgames. By the 2004 DRF Expo he knew enough to say on stage that he doesn\'t use pars any more (which as it happens was directly contradicted by Dick Jerardi, who does figures for Beyer, in a recent DRF article).
Also as it happens I had this very conversation with Randy Moss (who also makes figures for Beyer and is a good guy, as is Jerardi) a couple of nights before the Belmont. If you use pars, for example saying 10 claimers average going in an 8, then at the end of the year they will average an 8. You will bring them to that par, by definition. And ten years later you\'ll still bring them to that par, whether the breed has gotten better or not-- no way to tell doing it that way. If you use pars you can\'t compare horses from different generations-- you can only look at the RELATIONSHIP between stakes horses and claimers, of the SAME generation.
As for that Belmont, unless there was another 1 1/2 race on the card all Beyer (and Len, and Connie, and anybody else) had to work with once Sham broke down was Secretariat, and 4 horses behind him who got beat a stretch of highway. Not one of those horses ever won a race of any kind after that, by the way.
Moose-- okay, that was funny.
Miff wrote:
\"Yeah, what would Andy Beyer know about making numbers anyway?\"
The correct question is: Given his methods, was Beyer equipped a few years ago to make figures for a race that was run in 1973?
And the answer was no. And Beyer has admitted in his books that the answer was no. And Beyer himself would not take that Secretariat number seriously. And the problem I have with the DRF is that they knew other people would take it seriously, and yet they went through with that ridiculous stunt anyway.
Miff wrote:
\"On the other hand, the geniuses that made sheet figs at the time claim that Secretariat ran a fig like a TG neg -2.75 in the Derby and only paired that same TG -2.75 fig in the Belmont,guess Sham regressed about 15 points.\"
I don\'t understand what you\'re doing with Sham here.
The following is cut and pasted from a post I made a couple of years ago. Part of it has since been overtaken by events (the Jerardi column being just one of those events):
I said that Beyer \"ruined the historical comparability of his figures by anchoring them to par.\" This is a point that JB has made 50 times over the years. When you anchor your database to par, as Beyer did years ago, then when it comes to horses as a group, par is what you are going to get. This makes nonsense of attempts to compare, say, Seattle Slew to Rachel Alexandra. Seattle Slew was running at a time when Beyer was having an awful problem with \"figure shrinkage.\" Beyer\'s figures were getting slower by the month, due to faulty projections. He \"solved\" the problem by locking his database to par, which proved to be a slowly opening can of worms. Later, according to his most-recent book, he stopped doing this. But he can\'t ring the bells backwards.
Rich,
If you witnessed the race and followed closely back then and now, it becomes rather easy to opine that was the fastest race ever run by a thoroughbred at any distance.The track was extremely fast, yet a very sharp figure type guy concluded an adjustment of 42 beyer points off the raw was appropriate and came to a 124 Beyer(equal to a neg -7 on TG).Understood no other distance races to tie to and much creative license taken.
I\'ll agree the figure can be whatever ridiculous number one wishes to make it but the performance cannot be tarnished by track speed, cushion size or whatever since ALL runners in that Belmont ran on the very same surface.
Best,
Mike
Mike-- depends on your definition of runners...
There is of course no way I can offer any opinion of that day. But I would like to know what Beyer gave him the rest of the year, at distances and layouts it was easier to make figures for-- on Ragozin (by memory) his best going forward was about a zero, in the Marlboro.
Miff,
Much to agree with here. I have plenty of problems with Beyer\'s methods and columns, but I have no problem with Secretariat. I loved him, and if I\'m not arguing that Seattle Slew was the greatest horse I ever saw, then I\'m usually arguing that Secretariat was.
Rich,
Believe it or not but for pure fast, at the top level, I never saw a horse as consistently fast as Dr.Fager.Saw his last start at Aqueduct, 7f with 139 pounds, fight off a rival, half in 43.4, and cruise home in 1.20.1.
Keeping the subjective out, like best or greatest, he was the fastest horse that ever lived any era,imo.
Mike
Miff,
I\'m happy to accept your opinion of Dr. Fager. He was before my time. My first memory in life is of seeing Maria Schneider in \"Last Tango in Paris,\" and everything since has been anti-climactic.
Rich,
Technologically challenged or I\'d post Fagers pp\'s. Sure anyone who follows and respects figs would be impressed.
Rich Curtis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Miff,
>
> I\'m happy to accept your opinion of Dr. Fager.
> He was before my time. My first memory in life is
> of seeing Maria Schneider in \"Last Tango in
> Paris,\" and everything since has been
> anti-climactic.
I remember reading somewhere that she also received a 139 Beyer for that performance.
Yes, but amazingly, according to Brando, she never bounced.
miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rich,
>
> Technologically challenged or I\'d post Fagers
> pp\'s. Sure anyone who follows and respects figs
> would be impressed.
Overrated :)
Was there a reason Dr Fager didn\'t run in the triple crown races?
http://www1.drf.com/misc/excerpts/dr_fager.pdf
also..
In the 1960\'s they had better pp information than we can get from euro imports now??
Thanks Lost,
Fager nursed a knee and ankle most of his career esp around the TC time.Nerud not so certain Fager could take it physically. His 2 defeats by Damascus,a very serious race horse, were the product of Damascus entry mate Hedevar(Think or Kissing George) going head to head with Fager to soften him.Fager was head strong, pulled and would try to savage any horses near him, a killer.
Funny how the connections of many horses today scream when they have to spot/carry weight, just look what this horse carried, shipping all over while smashing track records.
Can\'t say best that ever lived but I think the fastest.
Mike
Thanks Jb many of us were worries about Sekrah becoming Nyc 1347 with his/her remarkable prattle. bbb
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?gl=US&hl=en&client=mv-google&list=PL11563EB84580833F&nomobile=1
Take a ride down memory lane..these are some Dr fager videos
Wow ... the Washington Park meet at Arlington Park with Phil Gorgeff calling ... where I first fell for racing. What a terrifc time for racing, at that great horse racing facility, the old grandstand before it burned down.
Dr Fager - I\'d put him and Secretariat up there together, indeed.
\"Dr Fager - I\'d put him and Secretariat up there together, indeed\'
Sight,
Yet no match vs todays runners which are 2 seconds or app 11.75 lengths faster.I have a nice bridge for sale over in Brooklyn for anyone who believes that.
Mike
When I was a kid we used to walk 4 miles to school each day through the snow, carrying 80 pounds of books and our kid brothers...
Walter Johnson threw 120 miles an hour, the Babe hit the ball 900 feet with a hangover and a cigar behind his ear...
What was that song at the start of All In The Family? You know, the national anthem of the outer boroughs?
Yeah, damn the science, the teletimer was always broken back then.
Seriously? Science?? Using raw times 40 years apart is science?
\"Using raw times 40 years apart is science\'
JB,
You know better what I mean, raw time adjusted for track speed worked then as well as now and it was being done.
Fascinated at a young age when told by speed boy disciple that a Cali shipper that ran 1.10.2 for 6f in it\'s last race was not \"as fast\" as a local horse that ran 1.11 in its last race.WTF, I said,guys nuts,I was wrong when the local horse whistled.I was enlightened.
Mike
Good thing the Zenyatta talk was stopped so we could have a conclusive evaluation of Dr. Fager/Secretariat vs. the horses of today. No offense but it\'s like listening to old folks talk about the weather. Also a little like \"Groundhog Day.\"
But how about that Frankel! LMAO.
HP
\"Good thing the Zenyatta talk was stopped so we could have a conclusive evaluation of Dr. Fager/Secretariat vs. the horses of today\"
HP,
Was going to co-mingle the string by pointing out that Zenyatta was 2 seconds faster than Secretariat and Dr.Fager but would have been too confusing.
Mike
I have to defer to JB on anything figure related. If he says horses are getting faster I believe it. I\'m not qualified to argue this.
Reminds me of baseball. They have these debates in every sport. Old timers vs. newbies. Best example I can think of is pitching. Tom Seaver threw more complete games in a year than today\'s pitchers will throw in a career. Pick the best pitcher in baseball today and tell me I can pick that pitcher vs. Tom Seaver in his prime. I\'m picking Seaver. And all of this about today\'s players being bigger, stronger and faster...today\'s game is like watching paint dry. Six pitching changes to get through an inning. Most of the guys that CAN pitch nine innings, even at the beginning of their careers, need new arms and elbows after a few years. For my money it\'s ironic that these improvements in fitness, training, etc. do absolutely nothing to improve the game. I feel lucky to have seen the real thing. Another generation of iPhone toting fans and baseball will be finished.
For me the same applies to horse racing. Put Secretariat or Spectacular Bid (ran lights out THIRTY times) on the track with any of today\'s fastest horses. Whatever \"science\" is going to be applied I will take the old guys vs. your Ghostzappers or whoever eight days a week. Just looking at it as a sports fan and not a scientist or figure maker. I still enjoy the game but is it BETTER? Nah.
HP
HP,
Pitchers throw much harder today.Don\'t recall just how hard Seaver threw but some guys get up to 100+ mph today(dont know if radar guns are true/accurate) Players today bigger,stronger,faster from Tom Terrific days.Baseball is jacked today to enhance Home Runs for fans, shorter fences too.
No idea how Tom Terrific would do vs modern players.
Mike
I saw Gibson pitch against Seaver at Shea. Not buying that they are much faster today. Both of those guys threw in the 90s. Saw Ryan and he threw 100 mph FOREVER and pitched nine every time out. They were big and strong enough to score plenty of runs back then too. I guess the AVERAGE player is bigger and stronger but I don\'t see anyone that would make me think Willie McCovey was weak. I have not seen any team win the World Series over the past ten years that I would take over The Big Red Machine.
It\'s a pointless argument really, in baseball or horse racing. I\'m taking nostalgia. I enjoy it more than science.
HP
Even nostalgia ain\'t what it used to be, HP.
Miff, today\'s pitchers may throw harder, but I don\'t think they throw it any faster.
My favorite Nolan Ryan story is when he struck out the leadoff hitter (can\'t recall who this was) and, as the leadoff guy was walking back to the dugout, he advised the second guy in the lineup \"don\'t go up there!\".
A generation in humans is considered 25 years, in horses maybe 7-10. Seaver, Ryan, Gibson etc. were a generation or two ago. Dr. Fager and Secretariat were 5 generations ago, playing a game that relies on selctive breeding. Think the ballplayers from 100 years ago would do well against the ones today?
Depends on the player Jerry. I think Ty Cobb would do alright. Cy Young was six two and 210 lbs. I have a feeling he threw pretty hard. On average, maybe the players from 100 years ago might not do so well. But the BEST players? Your Dr. Fager/Secretariat types? Not so sure they\'d get blown away.
Here\'s a quote about Walter Johnson. \"Obviously there were not radar guns in Johnson\'s day, but two experiments clocked Johnson\'s fastball at 134 feet per second and 91.7 MPH.\" Another experiment had him in the mid 90s. Smokey Joe Wood reportedly threw harder.
I\'ll let you know when my Time Machine is done.
HP
How would horseplayers of 75 years ago do today?
\"How would horseplayers of 75 years ago do today?\"
The sheet guys from back then would probably do fine.
\"The sheet guys from back then would probably do fine\"
Magic,
Probably no sheets back then, but if you added the DRF speed rating plus variant,plus weight carried and bet the highest number,you beat the game!!
Steve Crist wanted to drop those from DRF but met opposition from the damn old people, pains in the neck!
Mike
Mike;
Perhaps not the sheets that we know of today, but the book TGJB cites in \"History Lesson\" that contained many if not all of the tenets of sheet methodology was published (2nd edition) in 1936 ... 76 years ago.
That is pretty funny about the DRF and their old speed ratings, but - hey - somebody must have been winning with them.
Wow, this one thread has gone down like 20 different roads.
I\'m in the camp of, if you took a time machine and brough the best players from the 1910-1950s to present day, they would be starters, but nowhere near the stars they were in their day.
The depth was not great then and they feasted on alot of lousy pitching. The stud pitchers could throw 90s, but there were plenty of major league pitchers who threw low 80s, who wouldn\'t get past single A minor leagues today. Alot of the star hitter feasted on these guys.
Pitch repertoire has changed so much since then too. Walter Johnson could throw low-mid 90s, but that\'s all he threw. He developed a curveball that he\'d mix in occaisionally, but I\'ve read he threw fastballs 80%+ of the time. He did it because he threw harder than everybody else and nobody could catch up to it. He would get torched trying that in today\'s game. A plus-fastball, and okay breaking ball. He could probably carve out a niche as a reliever today.
Pitches like split-finger fastball (Sutter) and cutters (Gossage, Rivera) were non existant back then. Even a pitch that you would think would be simple, a Changeup, has also evolved alot since that era as well.
sekrah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow, this one thread has gone down like 20
> different roads.
>
> I\'m in the camp of, if you took a time machine and
> brough the best players from the 1910-1950s to
> present day, they would be starters, but nowhere
> near the stars they were in their day.
>
> The depth was not great then and they feasted on
> alot of lousy pitching. The stud pitchers could
> throw 90s, but there were plenty of major league
> pitchers who threw low 80s, who wouldn\'t get past
> single A minor leagues today. Alot of the star
> hitter feasted on these guys.
>
> Pitch repertoire has changed so much since then
> too. Walter Johnson could throw low-mid 90s, but
> that\'s all he threw. He developed a curveball
> that he\'d mix in occaisionally, but I\'ve read he
> threw fastballs 80%+ of the time. He did it
> because he threw harder than everybody else and
> nobody could catch up to it. He would get
> torched trying that in today\'s game. A
> plus-fastball, and okay breaking ball. He could
> probably carve out a niche as a reliever today.
>
> Pitches like split-finger fastball (Sutter) and
> cutters (Gossage, Rivera) were non existant back
> then. Even a pitch that you would think would be
> simple, a Changeup, has also evolved alot since
> that era as well.
I\'m not sure you are giving those guys enough respect.
If Walter Johnson were playing in today\'s era, he would have the opportunity to develop other pitches. He would have the proper coaching to learn a changeup, refine his curveball, read scouting reports, view video files, etc... He would receive the proper nutrition, be provided with an exercise regimen, A professional training and medical staff, etc... Baseball has evolved over time, pitching as much as anything. This could be said for any pitcher from a different era. Bob Feller threw pretty damn hard. If he had that talent today, he would receive the proper coaching to develop a changeup, curveball, or any number of other pitches.
Same with the hitters. Sure, they hit some pretty mediocre pitching. There are plenty of relievers and starters that are less than good in today\'s game. Remember, these hitters will receive the same training, coaching, nutrition, etc...as today\'s players. They would have seen changeups, curveballs, sliders, etc.. and adapted to them, just as today\'s players have had to do.
You\'re saying they feasted on low 80\'s cheese, and couldn\'t hit better pitching?? As they say on SNL...Really?? Sek, you\'re selling these guys way to short.
There are more good players today, largely due to the obvious population growth. Players from another era would be successful. Perhaps they wouldn\'t put up some of the monster numbers some have, but they would be amongst the top players in the game. Who knows, maybe they would post huge numbers..
\"I\'m in the camp of, if you took a time machine and brough the best players from the 1910-1950s to present day, they would be starters, but nowhere near the stars they were in their day\"
Sek,
Interesting take. I\'m in the camp that great baseball players from 1910-1950 eras would not be physically talented enough to be ballboys today, given how much bigger/stronger/faster the humans of today are vs those of 60 to 100 years ago.Would think there may have been some great pitchers from thoses eras who may be able to pitch today.Baseball pitchers could be the exception.
Football, basketball, tennis, track and field and the rest have come way to far physically for any of those from 50-100 years ago to be able to be competitive in competing with modern athletes,imo.
Mike
how does this help me use the sheets and handicap for a profit?
\"I\'m in the camp that great baseball players from 1910-1950 eras would not be physically talented enough to be ballboys today, given how much bigger/stronger/faster the humans of today are vs those of 60 to 100 years ago.\"
This is a BIG generalization. You honestly believe this is true of Lou Gehrig and Hank Greenberg? Lacking in PHYSICAL talent? As I said before, on AVERAGE, okay they are bigger and stronger. The best of the best could hold their own.
I shook hands with Gil Hodges once. Started playing in 1943. I think he would be physically talented enough to go beyond ballboy today. I think he could throw half of the current Mets team right across a room.
HP
Hard to judge what the true quality of Major League Baseball was pre 1950 given the large number of talented players who were excluded from the game...
Tom Seaver would do fine vs todays hitters the first time thru the order. But, the reason that the Seavers of yesteryear were able to throw complete game after complete game is because the hitters were so far inferior to what you have today, he was able to let those hitters see him 3 or 4 times per game and still get them out in the 8th and 9th inning.
At the time of his retirement, Seaver was third on the all-time strikeout list (3,640), trailing only Nolan Ryan and Steve Carlton. No major league pitcher ever has matched his feat of striking out ten consecutive batters.[6] His career average of 6.85 strikeouts per nine innings is second only to Nolan Ryan (9.55)of any Hall of Famer with at least 300 wins. Seaver\'s lifetime ERA of 2.86 was third among starting pitchers in the Live Ball Era, behind only Whitey Ford (2.73) and Sandy Koufax (2.76). (Jim Palmer and Andy Messersmith both have a career earned run average of 2.86 as well.) Seaver also holds the record for consecutive 200-strike-out seasons with nine (1968–1976). Seaver\'s 61 career shutouts are second only to Warren Spahn (63) in the Live Ball Era. His career win-loss record percentage of .603 is one of the highest of any Hall of Fame pitcher with 300 wins in the Live Ball Era, and his record of 7.84 hits per nine innings is second only to Nolan Ryan (6.56) for all Hall of Fame pitchers with at least three hundred wins, and first among all HOF pitchers in any era with 300 wins, 3000 strikeouts, and a winning percentage of .600 or better.
per wikipedia
Seaver pitched a complete game shutout in 1985 at age 40. How you could imagine he\'d be IN HIS PRIME and done in by today\'s hitters is beyond me. He wasn\'t pitching in 1920! He probably could\'ve shut out the Mets last night.
HP
Before one of the 1978 World Series games between the Yankees & Dodgers Sandy Koufax was pitching batting practice to the Dodger hitters. Cey, Garvey, Baker all drilled a few BP fastballs into the stands and the competitive juices started to flow in the retired for 12 years, arthritic 42 year old Koufax.
He started snapping off his 12/6 curve ball; Cey, Garvey, Baker, Lopes etc. all came up for their 5 swings and misses, no one touched a ball. Tommy Lasorda came running out of the dugout screaming at Sandy to stop throwing his curveball
\" It\'s the f-----g World Series your going to put all my hitters in a slump\" was the managers plea. Koufax grinned, tipped his cap to the manager and walked off the mound.
Frank D.
Seaver would do fine today. It\'s not that far removed from his time. He had an electric slider and pinpoint control. He\'d still be the ace for ALOT of teams today.
Frank,
Koufax was the beginning of the modern pitcher IMO. Before him most pitchers were pretty vanilla pitchers with just 2 good offerings. Koufax developed 4 elite pitches and after him guys really started working on adding more to their repertoires.
Sekrah,
You mean like Marino Rivera and his extensive pitch repertoire?
Greatness is greatness it will transcend any era: Williams, DiMaggio, Mays, Mantle, Aaron, Ruth, Gehrig, Greenburgh, Cobb and many more would have been great whenever they played.
I agree overall that in the pitchers category of old greats that few would make the roll call and the Phil Rizutto\'s, Pee Wee Reese\'s of the old days would not have a place in today\'s game.
Frank D.
FrankD. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sekrah,
>
> You mean like Marino Rivera and his extensive
> pitch repertoire?
>
> Greatness is greatness it will transcend any era:
> Williams, DiMaggio, Mays, Mantle, Aaron, Ruth,
> Gehrig, Greenburgh, Cobb and many more would have
> been great whenever they played.
>
> I agree overall that in the pitchers category of
> old greats that few would make the roll call and
> the Phil Rizutto\'s, Pee Wee Reese\'s of the old
> days would not have a place in today\'s game.
>
> Frank D.
Relievers only need 1 or 2 great pitches to be successful. It\'s why I said Walter Johnson would make a great reliever today. Starters need at the minimum, 3 good pitches to succeed today.
Yes those hitters you mentioned would be great today, but the numbers they compiled would be nowhere near as good as they are. The pitching depth is simply greater.
Inclined to agree with you on career numbers with hitters who faced the same pitcher 4 & 5 times in a game as opposed to relief specialists of today.
We could go on all day and there is validity on most points in both directions so I\'ll stop it here with one final thought.
Give me Clemente in right, Mays in center & TGAB in left field and its still the best outfield I\'ve ever seen!!!
Frank D.
\"Ruth\'
Come\'on Frank, Ruth was a fat, slow, drunk.... great against todays athletes?, he\'d bat under 200 if he could make the team.
Mike
miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> \"Ruth\'
>
>
> Come\'on Frank, Ruth was a fat, slow, drunk....
> great against todays athletes?, he\'d bat under 200
> if he could make the team.
>
>
> Mike
This is ludicrous. Babe Ruth swung a 54 oz bat 75 mph. He could hit off anyone, anytime, anywhere.
Mike,
A respectful disagreement simply for the fact that he accomplished things in his time that had never been done before.He raised the bar for sure both on and off the field and let\'s not forget he was on his way to a hall of fame pitching career (for his time) before his switch to the outfield.
Also he was not as slow as he looked; Bill Spillane had him 1- going first to third on early parchment sheets.
Good luck,
Frank D.
\"Bill Spillane had him -1 going first to third on early parchment sheets\"
Frank D,
Ruth,baseball legend for sure, greatness personified during his era.Bill S did not tell you that surfaces were much faster back then, so Ruth was much slower than his numbers!
I\'ll take over 5% winners for wide Mikey...errrr I mean Rosario!
Mike
Yes, Frank in my prime, I could patrol left field okay. By the way I did see and do remember Koufax in his prime and he was dominant, the best I ever saw. But it took five years to tame that feral left arm. Juan Marichal and Bob Gibson were in/on the upper echelon as well. For anyone really interested in this stuff, Bill James has written two historical abstracts, the second an update 15 or 20 years or so later, that among other things tries to rate the best players from the different generations. He developed statistics which more accurately gauged performance and also used statistical techniques to determine more clearly assets and their relative value and to rid measurements of bias (home field adjustments, dead ball, live ball era adjustments, etc).
Much like Andy Beyer popularized speed figures and introduced them to new generations so did Bill James popularize sabermetric tools to get an insightful, fact-based assessment of baseball players, their talents and the teams on which they played, taking into account where and when they played.
But both had their primogenitors. E.W. Donaldson among others was writing handicapping books in the 1930s looking at some of the factors we focus on here--the effect of weight, ground loss, wind and its influence. And while I\'m not as knowledgeable about the history of baseball stats, certainly there are contemporaries of Bill James not as well known, but adding insight into how to value baseball players and performance. Pete Palmer and John Thorn are just a couple.
Alan,
I barely remember Koufax, I was 8 when he retired and wasn\'t a full fledged baseball junkie until age 10. I\'ve read much about him and there is no disputing his complete and total dominance from 63-66. No pitcher ever had 4 consecutive years like that; not even close. The only hitter to approach that type of dominance in consecutive years were DiMaggio\'s first 7 in the bigs before the war; staggering!!!!
I\'m familiar with James first book and tend to read in spurts of subjects so maybe this thread will make for some baseball reads on Tuesdays; after I do Wednesday\'s numbers!!!!
See you soon my friend along with the rest of the Carolina BBQ cast aways.
Frank D.
Bullsh!t!!! I saw Seaver beat Gibson 1-0 at Shea. Today\'s ballplayers are glorified triple A players and could not hold a candle to Gibson, Seaver, Ryan, Kofax, Drysdale, Marichal - and those were the guys off the top of my head. Sh!t, Don Cardwell could blow half of these losers away............ I (my parents) paid 5 bucks to see Seaver vs. Gibson. Top that!!
All these posts make me wonder if it would be possible to have a separate TG Board or at least a sub-section of this one.
It is hard for us younger guys to comment on this subject. You have to realize not everybody is as old at TGJB, Frank D. and Miff....
Mo, its the DEPTH of the league that you have to consider.
If you put Justin Verlander in a time machine and sent him back to 1972, do you think those hitters would make him look bad? Sal Bando led the World Champion A\'s with 77 RBIs. In Context, Nick Swisher, who\'s the 5th or 6th best hitter on the Yankees, will easily have 100 RBIs by the end of the season. Much better hitters in today\'s game for sure.
Koufax, Seaver, Gibson, Marichal would pitch shutouts ten years from now. And if you want to see an ATHLETE who could excel in any era, watch film of Mickey. No training, many drinks and too many injuries. I miss watching him play.
I would rather bet an entire card at a Japanese track using nothing but information written in Japanese than make cross-generational comparisons of athletes. You start with a different universe (racially, geographically, etc.) from which you draw participants. You have evolutionary changes in athletes\' physiology. There are supplements, legal and otherwise. There are all kinds of training and developmental programs which didn\'t exist in previous eras. Some of these work in favor of one side, some work in favor of the other. I can\'t level the playing field. It\'s hard enough to determine who\'s the greatest in a given time frame. No small achievement in such a designation.
MO Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bullsh!t!!! I saw Seaver beat Gibson 1-0 at Shea.
> Today\'s ballplayers are glorified triple A players
> and could not hold a candle to Gibson, Seaver,
> Ryan, Kofax, Drysdale, Marichal - and those were
> the guys off the top of my head. Sh!t, Don
> Cardwell could blow half of these losers
> away............ I (my parents) paid 5 bucks to
> see Seaver vs. Gibson. Top that!!
Now this is BS that goes the opposite direction of miff.
Please, that post is absurd.
Sek,
What makes you think that Ruth could hit much faster pitches than he ever saw, 2 seam, 4 seam, sliders and all the other \"new\" pitches which have evolved over the last 75 years? Never disputing the incomparable talent of Ruth back then, just wondering if his skill set would be capable of playing todays game.
Just not as certain as you that he would he able to.
Mike
Plastic wrote - \"Sal Bando led the World Champion A\'s with 77 RBIs. In Context, Nick Swisher, who\'s the 5th or 6th best hitter on the Yankees, will easily have 100 RBIs by the end of the season.\"
Sal Bando played real baseball. Nick Swisher plays DH baseball, which sucks. Big difference right there, in addition to the HUGE improvement of games going on for four hours. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
HP
HP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Plastic wrote - \"Sal Bando led the World Champion
> A\'s with 77 RBIs. In Context, Nick Swisher, who\'s
> the 5th or 6th best hitter on the Yankees, will
> easily have 100 RBIs by the end of the season.\"
>
> Sal Bando played real baseball. Nick Swisher
> plays DH baseball, which sucks. Big difference
> right there, in addition to the HUGE improvement
> of games going on for four hours.
> Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
>
> HP
The strike zone has shrunk considerably also. If the strike zone was called properly, mainly the high strike, these guys would have entirely different numbers.
miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sek,
>
> What makes you think that Ruth could hit much
> faster pitches than he ever saw, 2 seam, 4 seam,
> sliders and all the other \"new\" pitches which have
> evolved over the last 75 years? Never disputing
> the incomparable talent of Ruth back then, just
> wondering if his skill set would be capable of
> playing todays game.
>
> Just not as certain as you that he would he able
> to.
>
>
> Mike
miff. He had the strength to swing a bat as hard as today\'s guys. Your argument has shifted from whether he was athletic/strong enoughto now whether he has the skill. Do you really think hand-eye coordination has evolved that much in the human species in 90 years? Researcher at WUSTL (Washington University at St. Louis) did some motor skills tests on Albert Pujols, in a similar experiment that was conducted by Columbia University on Babe Ruth in 1921. Here is the article on it: http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/7535.aspx.
QuoteBoth Ruth and Pujols participated in a number of standard psychological lab tests, such as pegboard and finger tapping exercises, designed to gauge motor skills and cognitive performance.
..
Asked to depress a tapper with his index finger as many times as possible in 10 seconds, Pujols scored in the 99th percentile, a score almost identical to one earned by Ruth on a similar test of movement speed and endurance.
Ruth definently wouldn\'t hit 714 home runs if he started his career today, because the depth of pitching is far greater than it was then, but he would still be a very formidable power hitter capable of hitting 30-35 HRs a year, with a 15 year career netting him 450 +/- home runs.
Saying he would struggle to reach the Mendoza Line (.200) is outrageous IMO.
\"real baseball\"?
Im not following.
Using a designated hitter is not real baseball. I looked it up and Bando may actually have played in the DH time since it started in 1973. I didn\'t think they ruined baseball that long ago but that is indeed the year.
Up until 1973, both leagues played real baseball with real strategy. The game invented by Doubleday and played with great joy for decades. The pitcher hits. Involves real strategy. Baseball is not \"hittingtheball.\" It\'s baseball. Involves more than hitting.
After 1973 the American League started playing \"DH ball\" which is not real baseball and makes cross-generational comparisons even more impossible.
HP
I gotta be honest HP, as a paying customer who attends MLB games live and watches many on TV, i\'d prefer to see a \'real\' player swing the bat rather than some pitcher make an out on purpose by not really swinging.
Maybe its just me, but i\'d prefer the player with the bat in his hand to actually swing it hard and try and do some damage.
I can\'t imagine there\'s a player who could play in today\'s game who could party as hard as Ruth did and still be a top player. I\'m not sure Ruth ever exercised, he seemed \'overweight\', he was always seen with a girl, a cigar and probably had a very poor diet not to mention all the booze.
You\'re not alone. Enjoy! I prefer baseball to \"hittingtheball\" or its cousin \"Ineedtoseelotsofhomerunsball.\" \"Ineedtoseelotsofhomerunsball\" led us to the greatest modern innovation, \"whoistakingsteroidstohit70homerunsball.\" The DH started baseball on this path and its ruined a perfectly great game. You can have it.
I saw a doubleheader at Shea once. Mets won both games 1-0. First game Seaver homered for the win, second game Cardwell. May have been the other way around. Seeing a pitcher get a big hit is a real treat, but I guess you would rather watch some old guy who can\'t play the field or run get up there every few innings and sit back down. My dad and I got to Shea for 1PM start and we were home in Brooklyn by 5:30. Four hours and every pitch counted. That\'s BASEBALL my friend.
HP
HP, i dont mind if the pitcher actually tries to hit, but 90% of the time, the pitcher is bunting. While you may think that\'s \'real baseball\' i think its nonsense that a pitcher would be up there to bunt because he\'s got very little talent as a hitter.
About half the strategic questions in the game surround that one way or the other, and some of us like that.
\"About half the strategic questions in the game surround that one way or the other, and some of us like that.\"
Dead on, JB.
What used to kill me about the whole \"NL vs AL\" thing (I\'ve always been more of an AL guy) was that - while I always agreed the the DH was an abomination - I always hated that the NL was so dominated by artificial turf teams (this is the 70s and 80s I\'m referencing). I always thought that crap changed the game as much, if not more, than the DH ever did. I hated how it turned the game into a chop-fest/track-meet and cheated lots of great hitters out of well-struck hits.
And now? Now, it\'s the NL that doesn\'t have any parks that Dick Allen wouldn\'t want to play in (for you young \'uns, Google \"if a cow can\'t eat it\"). If I had the time and inclination to be a big baseball fan again, I\'d follow the senior circuit.
GREAT point on artificial turf. Awful stuff. HP
And some of us don\'t like it. HP suggests that he likes \'real baseball\' i dont consider an incompetent hitting pitcher bunting a runner from first to 2nd with one man already out (for example) as \'real baseball\'.
If you guys want the pitchers to bat, i could accept it if they were actually up there to bat. All they\'re up there to do most times is make an out on purpose when there are runners on base.
Now, if the leadoff man in the inning gets on first or 2nd and the pitcher is the 2nd hitter, i can totally accept the pitcher bunting the runner over, its a perfectly acceptable strategic move. But, i\'ve seen situations where the pitcher is at bat with one man already out and he\'s STILL bunting. To me, that\'s a bunch of baloney.
Some of you guys like to see \'strategy\', i\'d prefer to see a big lumberjack DH swinging the bat and trying to do some damage, especially if i paid money to get into the ballpark.
plasticman,
There are plenty of big guys today who aren\'t in top shape. Baseball has never been a sport where you needed to be in 100% fit condition. Cecil Fielder was a truck and hit over 300 home runs. Prince is even bigger than his dad, and although he\'s cut his weight a little in the past couple years, he was pushing 300 there a while ago and still cranking them out. Adam Dunn, another overweight guy who can\'t run a lick, but can crush home runs.
CC Sabathia is obese. Ruth was also obese, but he still threw as hard as anyone back then. They said he threw as hard as Walter Johnson (low-mid 90s). MLB players are not all the best athletes in the world. Far from it. It\'s much more of a skill game than other sports like basketball or football that rely more on athletic ability.
Plus travel must have been tough on all those trains
Miff - Here\'s a story about the splits from Frankel\'s romp at Ascot.
http://www.anddownthestretchtheycome.com/2012/6/27/3120822/2012-royal-ascot-review-frankel-black-caviar
Great post Sek.
There are so many reasons to think that players other than the top stars of yesteryear would have no shot to even make it to the show. Sure, the Ruths and Dimaggios might make the bigs, but many of their competition were not major league talent by today\'s standards.
... I forgot: Was this string originally about the horse or the trainer?
Any good racing anywhere this weekend? Churchill going to twilight cards for
last 3 days due to blast furnace weather?
Ritchie two for the price of one with Stakes races tomorrow at CD, Bel, Mth and Betfair.....Not bad so get all the work done and settle in around 4ish and enjoy till bedtime.
Ruth was also a great pitcher.
Whitey Ford broke Ruth\'s record for consecutive World Series scoreless innings.
Whose record did Ruth break?
Why, none other than the Big Six who hailed from Factoryville, Pa: Christy Mathewson.