If you didn\'t see the Sunland Oaks, check out this filly. Although Rachel developed her huge numbers after running for a while, this filly\'s brillance can\'t help but force the comparisons. So what do they do? Oaks or Derby??? I\'ll tell you, based on the males 3 year olds and what they\'ve shown thusfar, or what they haven\'t shown, ML\'s connections have to at least think about the Derby, but they probably will go Oaks in the final analysis, maybe because of the distance--I think it would be pretty hard to get a mile and a quarter in only your 3rd start when the farthest you\'ve run so far is 1 mile & 1/16. Maybe if she airs in the Oaks they\'ll try the Preakness. Any thoughts?
I Was at the race track. The filly was very impressive, she looked effortless at the wire
Can\'t run in Derby as a filly anymore unless you run against the boys and qualify in one of the prep races
it\'s one of the reasons they made the changes they made away from straight graded earnings
a filly can run, she just has to earn her way in like everyone else.
no reason a filly should have been able to take the easy road into the Derby when the colts have to knock themselves out against one another to get in
I guess the Derby is out, as Jim points out. That said, the question for me is how to play this girl in the Oaks. She could be a \"stand\" in all multi-race bets on Oaks day, as well as a bridge into the Derby via the Oaks-Derby double.
That said, the contrarian in me says that we will have a filly with only 2 starts, clearly hasn\'t been tested, and will likely be a very short in a relatively large field. And if the TG figure is in line with the 94 beyer, she will enter off a little bit of a regression. Maybe, there will be a ton of value in going against her. Of course I used that same strategy in Rachel\'s 3 year old year, when I bet against her in all but 2 of her races and in the same year bet against Zenyatta in all but one of hers. I got \"value\" every single time....... I just didn\'t cash.
Yes, two nice wins but let\'s not get carried away in comparing her to Rachel. There stake records were broken on that card.
covelj70 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> a filly can run, she just has to earn her way in
> like everyone else.
>
> no reason a filly should have been able to take
> the easy road into the Derby when the colts have
> to knock themselves out against one another to get
> in
James:
\"Earn\"? You mean the way Black Onyx \"earned it\", securing a Derby berth by beating
a field which I believe featured one graded stakes winner, over a synthetic
surface?
Colts with three or four starts before the Derby are \"knocking each other out\" to
get in?
This current points system, besides being politicized (no points for Illinois
Derby?), seems to favor colts who peak in the Spring of their 3YO year. By
marginalizing a runner\'s 2YO success, it seems likely that, under this points
system, we are assured of having lightly raced Derby winners who have very little
chance of winning a Triple Crown.
[I guess that is my way of saying that Shanghai Bobby\'s 2YO resume was strong
enough that he should have already secured a stall in the Derby starting gate].
Richie,
you know I love you like a brother but I strongly disagree about the current system in general and SB in particular.
1) The winner of big purse races like the Sunland Derby and Spriral always get in so that\'s no different from history
2) The points system is specifically meant to exclude horses like Sabercat who won a single race against no one as a two year old then had one mediocore prep as a three year old yet still had a spot in the starting gate.
3) it\'s also meant to exclude horses that have no business being in the race because they have no shot at getting the distance. Trinniberg had no business being there last year and woukdn\'t be in this year. If SB can\'t get a 1 1/8 in his final prep and finishes 5th, why should he be in the Derby based on what he did going 1 1/16 in his three year old year? My horse could win up in the same situation if he can\'t get the mile and an eight on April 13th but if he can\'t finish in the top 4 going the mile and an eighth, then he shouldn\'t be in there anyway
4) it\'s also meant to exclude fillies from back dooring their way in. Why should Eight Belles (may she rest in peace) have been allowed in the Derby without going through the same rigors of the Derby trail as the colts that ran that year. That system was garbage. Many of the colts would run better in the Derby if they weren\'t forced to be all in to get into the Derby so this levels the playing field that way.
The new system needs to and will be tweaked next year by including the Illinois Derby but overall the system is a great improvement over the graded earnings system.
I would think you of all people would appreicate that as you are about to see a bunch of absolutely loaded final preps with horses who are desperate because of a system that rewards recent form at longer distances heading into the Derby. You have Normandy Invasion life or death against two really fast colts next weekend in the Wood because he barely has any points. Same deal with Revolutionary and Code West and Palice Malice this weekend in the Big Easy.
That kind of situation was a real rairty before this year. I love this stuff.
covelj70 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can\'t run in Derby as a filly anymore unless you
> run against the boys and qualify in one of the
> prep races
>
> it\'s one of the reasons they made the changes they
> made away from straight graded earnings
>
> a filly can run, she just has to earn her way in
> like everyone else.
>
> no reason a filly should have been able to take
> the easy road into the Derby when the colts have
> to knock themselves out against one another to get
> in
Eesh. As someone\'s already pointed out, I\'m not seeing too many males \"knock themselves out\" in the Tampa Bay Derby, Rushaway and Spiral, Sunland, and many others including turf and foreign races.
Besides, the point isn\'t to knock themselves out beforehand but instead to put together the best field. Sometimes that can include a filly, and no, it shouldn\'t be necessary that they race against males prior to X race to belong in X race. Zenyatta belonged just fine in the BC Classic, Rachel fit just fine in the Preakness, and Havre de Grace belonged in the Woodward.
This points system is a case of fixing what ain\'t broken, and in doing so, I think they may well have broken it. I think it was just an excuse to get back at Hawthorne. They should know better than to tinker with the Derby. It\'s the one cash cow in the sport and 100% responsible for their profits.
Agree with others. Hasn\'t shown nearly enough to put her up there in Rachel stratosphere.
as I said to Richie, I respectfully couldn\'t disagree more.
First of all, I\'m not exactly sure what your concern was about the Tampa Bay Derby but the horse that earned his way in in that race did so by running a huge number on the sheets and the second place finisher in that race also ran an equally impressive number. Those TG numbers would have won most prep races in most years so your comment that Verazzano and Java\'s War weren\'t impressive is puzzling.
Under the old system, it\'s almost certain that both Verazzano and Java\'s War would have earned their way into the Derby.
As it stands now, Java\'s War will have to hit the board in the Blue Grass to get into the Derby. Isn\'t it a good thing that we are asking horses to race more frequently, at a higher level and at longer distances to get into the Derby?
I am practicing what I preach here as Falling Sky may not qualify under the new system whereas he might have qualified under the old system but even if that happens, I think the new system is a huge step in the right direction for the game
Fillies and sprinters should absolutely not be allowed in the Derby if they haven\'t run competitively in 2 turn races against colts.
There\'s just absolutely no logical argument that Midnight Lucky should be in the Derby off of what she did in the Sunland Oaks. You make the argument that you weren\'t impressed by the Tampa Bay Derby where multiple horses ran low single digit TG\'s and that you weren\'t impressed with the horses than \"earned\" their way in in the Sprial or Sunland Derby and yet you think Midnight Lucky should be allowed in the Ky. Derby by beating a bunch of slow, overmatched fillies? Can you please explain how that is consistent in any way?
I am not sure I like my new position of agreeing with Mr. Covello all the time, as I don\'t want to seem to be his lackey. (I would prefer to be TGAB\'s lackey....)
That said, I think that other than missing the Illinois Derby, the new system is much better than the old system. All you have to do is look at the top 2 year olds on the money list last year. Would we want He\'s Had Enough as an entrant? George Vancouver, Power Broker, Capo Bastone, Fortify? Maybe not all of those would have qualified, but a bunch would have.
The old system \"was broke\".
The new system isn\'t perfect. I think they should give SOME weighting to the top performing 2 year olds. Hard to define \"some\" and where to draw the line. It does seem that Shanghai Bobby should get some credit for being undefeated and being the top 2 year old. Perhaps the 2 year old Eclipse Winner qualifies for a spot? That would still keep out the non-deserving horses I mentioned above.
covelj70 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> as I said to Richie, I respectfully couldn\'t
> disagree more.
>
> First of all, I\'m not exactly sure what your
> concern was about the Tampa Bay Derby but the
> horse that earned his way in in that race did so
> by running a huge number on the sheets and the
> second place finisher in that race also ran an
> equally impressive number. Those TG numbers would
> have won most prep races in most years so your
> comment that Verazzano and Java\'s War weren\'t
> impressive is puzzling.
They sent Verazzano there because it was slim pickins, and he hardly got beat up winning that race.
> Under the old system, it\'s almost certain that
> both Verazzano and Java\'s War would have earned
> their way into the Derby.
There\'s a problem with that?
> As it stands now, Java\'s War will have to hit the
> board in the Blue Grass to get into the Derby.
> Isn\'t it a good thing that we are asking horses to
> race more frequently, at a higher level and at
> longer distances to get into the Derby?
More frequently? I see the same picking and choosing - maybe more so - as I\'ve seen in past years.
> I am practicing what I preach here as Falling Sky
> may not qualify under the new system whereas he
> might have qualified under the old system but even
> if that happens, I think the new system is a huge
> step in the right direction for the game
>
> Fillies and sprinters should absolutely not be
> allowed in the Derby if they haven\'t run
> competitively in 2 turn races against colts.
Why not? If they are one of the best 20 3yos in the country, why shouldn\'t they be there? If they\'re one of the best 2-3 3yos in the country, why shouldn\'t they be there?
I\'m also not that concerned with supposed sprinters. Wasn\'t that what Hard Spun and others supposedly were? I\'m fine with letting the owners decide if their horses should try the distance.
> There\'s just absolutely no logical argument that
> Midnight Lucky should be in the Derby off of what
> she did in the Sunland Oaks. You make the
> argument that you weren\'t impressed by the Tampa
> Bay Derby where multiple horses ran low single
> digit TG\'s and that you weren\'t impressed with the
> horses than \"earned\" their way in in the Sprial or
> Sunland Derby and yet you think Midnight Lucky
> should be allowed in the Ky. Derby by beating a
> bunch of slow, overmatched fillies? Can you
> please explain how that is consistent in any way?
I didn\'t say this filly should be in the Derby. I don\'t think she has the seasoning to be in the Derby for starters. But if there is an Eight Belles or Rachel Alexandra or Rags to Riches out there that is one of the best 3yos - regardless of sex - then I want them in the race.
jimbo66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am not sure I like my new position of agreeing
> with Mr. Covello all the time, as I don\'t want to
> seem to his lackey. (I would prefer to be TGAB\'s
> lackey....)
>
> That said, I think that other than missing the
> Illinois Derby, the new system is much better than
> the old system. All you have to do is look at the
> top 2 year olds on the money list last year.
> Would we want He\'s Had Enough as an entrant?
> George Vancouver, Power Broker, Capo Bastone,
> Fortify? Maybe not all of those would have
> qualified, but a bunch would have.
>
> The old system \"was broke\".
>
> The new system isn\'t perfect. I think they should
> give SOME weighting to the top performing 2 year
> olds. Hard to define \"some\" and where to draw the
> line. It does seem that Shanghai Bobby should get
> some credit for being undefeated and being the top
> 2 year old. Perhaps the 2 year old Eclipse Winner
> qualifies for a spot? That would still keep out
> the non-deserving horses I mentioned above.
You\'re looking at them with the benefit of hindsight. This year will be no different when you look back at them a year from now.
Are we really complaining that the winner of the Spiral or Sunland didn\'t beat anyone to \"earn\" their spot in the Derby while also complaining that the Illinois Derby winner doesn\'t get in? The Illinois Derby hasn\'t produced a Derby winner since War Emblem yet the Spiral gave us Animal Kingdom. Now I\'m sure once the IL Derby is included into the points system we\'ll see some decent horses return to that race but in recent history it\'s been full of horses that have no business lining up in the CD gate in May.
I\'m perfectly happy with the current system. I think many connections are kicking themselves for not pointing to last weekend\'s races but to me that\'s just part of the growing pains of this system. Next year we should see a more spread out wealth of horses as the connections figure out what path is the best way to get points for their horses.
Yes, Animal Kingdom. And how many other Spiral runners were Triple Crown factors
after the leaky roof once known as \"Latonia\" switched to a synthetic surface?
Well there was Hard Spun(2007), who I think was second in the Derby, third in the
Preakness and fourth in the Belmont. Flower Alley (year?) turned into a nice 3YO,
but mostly after the Triple Crown races were run.
Prediction about the Sunland Derby: East coast trainers will be slow to embrace this
race and the long ship involved. Baffert wins seven of the next 10 runnings, setting
new track records in five of them.
James:
I will not address your points individually, but:
a) Just because the winner of the \"high purse races\" like the Spiral and the
Sunland always gets in doesn\'t mean they deserve to get in. The Sunland Derby,
based on the brief glance I took at the field, looked like a graded race; to me
the Spiral did not. But grading races seems to be a matter of hype, politics and
history/tradition. And we will not get into a discussion about whether points
should be awarded for any race run on a surface other than dirt (a very small
percentage of the available points should be awarded for synth/turf races,
including the annual Keeneland Spring synthetic \"bombathons\", the Blue Grass and
the Lexington).
b) Agree about Trinniberg, and not because he beat me every time he won last year.
(Trinni and Little Mike just wore me out last year). If there are points given for
any race contested at distances less than one mile, stop it now! See James, we can
agree on something...
c) ...but not on Shanghai Bobby, who, I agree, has to really show something in
Hallandale to be considered a Derby Factor. HOWEVER, back in the days of not so
yore, when the Triple Crown races were jointly administered by Visa, with large
cash bonuses being offered, when 3 racetracks actually worked together, the idea
was to try to coerce the Racing Gods into allowing the long suffering Racing World
to enjoy the spectacle of a runner winning the Triple Crown (We are currently
experiencing the longest Triple Crown drought (35 years) ever). A lot of folks
think that a Triple Crown winner will bring thoroughbred racing, with apologies to
Los Lobos, \"out of the darkness, into the light.\"
I am not so certain that a Triple Crown winner is the balm which will heal all of
Racing\'s open wounds. I do feel strongly that the current prototypical lightly
raced \"classic\" 3YO, he of very little 2YO foundation, he of the \"too fast too
soon\" big knock out figure, is not capable of winning the Triple Crown. The
unofficial TG board vet (Sighthound, not Allday) is in complete agreement here.
My feeling is that points should be awarded for important two year old stakes. Two
year old foundation and brilliance is part of the big picture in Racing. You will
have a sounder 3YO crop and a possible Triple Crown winner if 2YO accomplishments
are at least recognized/factored. I do not know if an on the board finish for SB @
Hallandale is enough to get him in the Derby gate, but based on wins in the BC and
the Champagne, it should be.
Do not know if the points system has created that much extra drama. To me, same
church, different pew. The drama comes from having more than 20 horses sound and
willing (and hopefully qualified) to run and only 20 stalls in the gate. Maybe the
brain surgeons at CD will come up with a harness like elimination system, where
the two top finishers from 10 major preps are all assured Derby spots (talk about
pressure...)
I didn\'t know that. Thanks for the info. Fillies would have to run against colts in prep races? That\'s not very likely to happen. What about other triple crown races? Can a filly run in the Preakness, for example? That would make more sense anyway.
The only good thing that a Triple Crown winner will do for racing is that he will finally kill off the ridiculous notion that a Triple Crown winner will do something good for racing.
Since 1980
Serena\'s Song won the Spiral Stakes before taking on the boys in the Derby. Winning Colors won the SA Derby before winning the Derby. Life\'s Magic also ran in SA Derby. Althea ran in Ark Derby. Cupecoy\'s Joy ran in the Spiral Stake and Genuine Risk ran in the Wood.
Those that didn\'t run against the boys - Eight Belles, Excellent Meeting, Three Ring.
Looks like if they are good enough; they go against the boys prior to the Derby, tends to back up Jim\'s theory. Why should a Filly be treated any differently than any colt trying to get entry to the Derby.
Wrongly Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Since 1980
>
> Serena\'s Song won the Spiral Stakes before taking
> on the boys in the Derby. Winning Colors won the
> SA Derby before winning the Derby. Life\'s Magic
> also ran in SA Derby. Althea ran in Ark Derby.
> Cupecoy\'s Joy ran in the Spiral Stake and Genuine
> Risk ran in the Wood.
>
> Those that didn\'t run against the boys - Eight
> Belles, Excellent Meeting, Three Ring.
>
> Looks like if they are good enough; they go
> against the boys prior to the Derby, tends to back
> up Jim\'s theory. Why should a Filly be treated
> any differently than any colt trying to get entry
> to the Derby.
How are they treated differently? They are running in their division, just as the boys are running in their division.
I\'d disagree with your assertion that Eight Belles didn\'t belong given that she proved differently. You\'re going pretty far back to find fillies who ran in preps, and a number of them were trained by DWL.
No matter how you slice it, races restricted to fillies are restricted races. Colts don\'t have the chance to earn points in those races.
The new system is clearly better than the old one, where a guy could put up 2M of his own money, on a freak surface on the other side of the world, run second, and punch his ticket. But it seems to me the easiest way is a point system, with first, seconds and thirds weighted differently for GIs,IIs and IIIs at a mile and over. I think Steve Crist proposed something like that.
Think new system much better than old one. Some slug cant get lucky in a two yr old race(say,Delta Jackpot),race empty in 3 yr old preps,and still get in.If 2 yr old champ,Shanghai Bobby,does not run 1,2,(3?) on Sat,he does not belong in Derby.
Filly question simple, win a designated prep,against the boys,and get in.
You\'re making a fairness argument? In THIS sport? That\'s like making a dryness argument in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. At this point, fairness is a lost cause. But interest isn\'t. And fillies are interesting and often heroic. Restricted races? Points? It reminds me of those people who wanted to keep Henry Aaron out of the All Star game in 1974. He didn\'t have enough points that year. Replace him with some guy nobody cares about. Fairness. Yawn. Splendid.
Rich Curtis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You\'re making a fairness argument? In THIS sport?
> That\'s like making a dryness argument in the
> middle of the Pacific Ocean. At this point,
> fairness is a lost cause. But interest isn\'t. And
> fillies are interesting and often heroic.
> Restricted races? Points? It reminds me of those
> people who wanted to keep Henry Aaron out of the
> All Star game in 1974. He didn\'t have enough
> points that year. Replace him with some guy nobody
> cares about. Fairness. Yawn. Splendid.
Your analogies are all over the place, and aren\'t very relevant. All Star games are exhibitions, it doesn\'t matter who participates. Fans vote for the rosters. If you want to stage an exhibition race, and vote for the jockeys and horses, then go ahead and vote for a filly.
Fillies aren\'t interesting if they run up the track.
This is the marquee event of the entire racing calendar. The Kentucky Derby. If you want a seat at that table, you need to earn it. If a filly wants the opportunity to be \"heroic\", they need to show that ability against those same colts before the race. The Kentucky Derby shouldn\'t be the race to find that out.
So basically you\'re saying fillies should get a pass because they are fillies, interesting, and at times can be heroic.
I\'ve seen a lot of interesting and heroic colts run in this race. You need to find another reason to include fillies other than that.
\"Your analogies are all over the place\"
Kind of like a Mike Smith ride.
\"All Star games are exhibitions, it doesn\'t matter who participates.\"
Right. TV ratings don\'t matter. The fact that non-fans watch this game doesn\'t matter.
\"Fillies aren\'t interesting if they run up the track.\"
Nonsense. Much of the interest is pre-race.
P-Dub Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rich Curtis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You\'re making a fairness argument? In THIS
> sport?
> > That\'s like making a dryness argument in the
> > middle of the Pacific Ocean. At this point,
> > fairness is a lost cause. But interest isn\'t.
> And
> > fillies are interesting and often heroic.
> > Restricted races? Points? It reminds me of
> those
> > people who wanted to keep Henry Aaron out of
> the
> > All Star game in 1974. He didn\'t have enough
> > points that year. Replace him with some guy
> nobody
> > cares about. Fairness. Yawn. Splendid.
>
>
> Your analogies are all over the place, and aren\'t
> very relevant. All Star games are exhibitions, it
> doesn\'t matter who participates. Fans vote for
> the rosters. If you want to stage an exhibition
> race, and vote for the jockeys and horses, then go
> ahead and vote for a filly.
>
> Fillies aren\'t interesting if they run up the
> track.
>
> This is the marquee event of the entire racing
> calendar. The Kentucky Derby. If you want a seat
> at that table, you need to earn it. If a filly
> wants the opportunity to be \"heroic\", they need to
> show that ability against those same colts before
> the race. The Kentucky Derby shouldn\'t be the
> race to find that out.
>
> So basically you\'re saying fillies should get a
> pass because they are fillies, interesting, and at
> times can be heroic.
>
> I\'ve seen a lot of interesting and heroic colts
> run in this race. You need to find another reason
> to include fillies other than that.
Why should the UAE Derby winner get 100 points? It\'s nothing more than a nod for the Sheikh to be able to run his horses at his home track, over synthetics, against no one, and get a spot in the Derby. That\'s somehow \"earning\" a spot in the field whereas a filly who runs so impressively in her Oaks prep that it is logical to consider running her in the Derby has NOT earned her way in?
There will be at least half the Derby field who will NOT be better horses than the top 3yo female (or maybe more).
Regardless, I\'m more miffed over the other matter than about the fact that no fillies will ever run in the race again, and that\'s CD misusing their power to force other tracks to be beholden to them.
The old system was INCREDIBLY broke and provided way too much weight to 2 yr old races. The KY Derby is for the nation\'s best 3 yr old route horses, not 2 yr old burnouts or 3yr old sprinters.
As many of us have seen in years past, the best 2 yr olds are not always the best 3 yr olds. In fact, frequently are not. Asking a successful 2yr old to show us something at 3 is nowhere near an unreasonable request.
As others have already mentioned, the new system is not perfect and needs some tinkering, but suggesting that the old method was not broken is simply laughable. One need look no further than the historical performance of BC Juv top finishers in the Derby for a perfect argument as to why the results of 2yr old should not be weighted anywhere near 3yr old performance, let alone as ridiculously overweighted as the old earnings method provided.
Go back to bed and get up on the other side of it.
Rich Curtis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> \"Your analogies are all over the place\"
>
> Kind of like a Mike Smith ride.
Wow, another Mike Smith reference. You really know how to get under my skin. Ouch.
>\"All Star games are exhibitions, it doesn\'t matter who participates.\"
>Right. TV ratings don\'t matter. The fact that non-fans watch this game doesn\'t >matter.
Non fans aren\'t drawn to the race because a filly runs.
>\"Fillies aren\'t interesting if they run up the track.\"
>Nonsense. Much of the interest is pre-race.
They are one of many pre race stories. They don\'t bring in casual fans. You\'re telling me ratings spiked because Three Rings ran in the Derby??
\"Wow, another Mike Smith reference. You really know how to get under my skin. Ouch.\"
It\'s way, way too late in the game for you to try this approach, PDub. What you need to do is start ignoring the Mike Smith references, and then outlive people.
\"They are one of many pre race stories. They don\'t bring in casual fans. You\'re telling me ratings spiked because Three Rings ran in the Derby??\"
Three what? Really, PDub, who do you think is likely to attract more interest in the Derby, a filly or the type of colt the filly would be keeping out?
Rich Curtis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> \"Wow, another Mike Smith reference. You really
> know how to get under my skin. Ouch.\"
>
> It\'s way, way too late in the game for you to try
> this approach, PDub. What you need to do is start
> ignoring the Mike Smith references, and then
> outlive people.
I have no idea what approach you\'re referring to. You make a lame Mike Smith reference, tell me to ignore them, then outlive people? I have no idea what you\'re trying to accomplish with this nonsense.
> \"They are one of many pre race stories. They don\'t
> bring in casual fans. You\'re telling me ratings
> spiked because Three Rings ran in the Derby??\"
>
> Three what? Really, PDub, who do you think is
> likely to attract more interest in the Derby, a
> filly or the type of colt the filly would be
> keeping out?
You act as if having a filly will be some monumental story. It won\'t...UNLESS its a filly that has shown some type of ability to compete with the boys. Winning Colors aired in the SA Derby. Now thats a horse that creates interest. Three \"What\" Rings
beat up on fillies at her home track (GP), then ran DFL in the Derby. One of many fillies that were virtual no shows in the Derby.
As to your question, what type of colt would be potentially be left out?? What if Mine That Bird had been excluded? He ran 2nd in the Borderland Derby, 4th in the Sunland Derby. Having enough earnings to qualify, this thoroughly uninteresting horse registers a 50/1 upset, one of the more memorable upsets in racing history.
What about Giacomo, ridden by our buddy Mike Smith?? 3rd in the Sham, 2nd in the San Felipe, 4th in the SA Derby. What if we excluded this bum for some interesting filly?? Another uninteresting 50/1 winner, but hey, I guess you would rather watch some filly clunk up for 10th.
People won\'t find a filly any more interesting than they would finding out that Giacomo was named after Sting\'s son, if you\'re referring to casual fans. If you\'re referring to racing fans, if a filly isn\'t accomplished enough, it may have mild interest. Nothing more.
You never know what will happen in a horse race, lets put a filly in the Derby because its interesting. I don\'t know about you Rich, but I found Mine That Bird and Giacomo winning the Derby to be much more interesting than watching Three Rings run DFL, or any of the other fillies that have been non competitive.
Gotta go a little I Dub here and make this a little personal.
Ive been going to/playing races for 40 years, about 12 of those years going basically daily.
Fillies running against colts has produced two unforgettable moments, probably
not for the right reasons
1980, Genuine Risk, Kentucky Derby. Knew I was watching history, a filly
hadn\'t won in 65 years. Not one of the all time great fillies, but got good at
the right time. With the help of info from the Racing Hall of Fame, I can
report that GR was undefeated in 6 starts going into the Wood. She ran third
in the Wood, beaten less than two lengths. Jacinto Vasquez, who might not have
had a Derby mount that year, had been trying to convince Leroy Jolley and the
Firestones that GR deserved a Derby chance.
The story goes that GR ran off with Vasquez her first morning training after
the Wood, which is fun if you believe JV let her run off a bit and went back
and told Jolley he couldn\'t hold her (irony here? because if there is one
thing we all knew JV could do...). The Wood at the time was 2 weeks before the
Derby. Vasquez and the Firestones prevailed, and GR won the Derby and backed
it up with a second in the infamous Codex Preakness, second again in the
Belmont.
2009, Zenyatta, BC Classic. Was alive with Gio Ponti, double, P3, P4 etc. Ouch.
Oh the bitch. Not a fun moment in the dark November recesses of Living Room
Downs. Certainly historical for some, a real bad memory for me.
Enough about me. Not enough factual information being traded in this
testosterone fueled do fillies belong in the Derby debate.
1) Females compete against males at the highest levels regularly around the
World. Females have had success in the BC against males (Sprint, Turf Mile,
Synthetic Classics).
2) If a filly is dominating races against her own gender, she certainly
deserves a Derby chance versus colts. A dominant filly would not have any
chance under the current point system. I probably do not agree with this but
have no solution.
3) If a filly has already had success against colts (Winning Colors), she
deserves a Derby chance. Midnight Lucky in the SA Derby?
4) Since this is the TG board important to repeat these words \"Five pounds at
ten furlongs\"
P-Dub Wrote:
> You never know what will happen in a horse race,
> lets put a filly in the Derby because its
> interesting. I found Mine That Bird and Giacomo winning the Derby
> to be much more interesting than watching Three
> Rings run DFL, or any of the other fillies that
> have been non competitive.
Not Curtis, but I\'m guessing he\'s trying to get up on the right side of the bed, per JB\'s suggestion, and in the interests of space, I chose not to quote the entire post.
The best numbers I could find, and I\'ll defer to anyone who has more complete data, is that there have been 38 fillies entered in the Derby and 3 winners. Besides being a better percentage than Pletcher\'s, it\'s probably also a better percentage than horses of the Mine that Bird and Giacomo ilk, since there are roughly 2-3 per year, at least in the 20 horse field era, above that 50-1 threshold. I think it\'s safe to say there are many more 50-1 shots who moved quickly into obscurity than the 35 fillies who failed to win the Derby. Personally, I have no investment in the composition of the Derby field, nor its methodology of selection. I\'m only interested in my own faulty methodology of selection, but I\'m bothered by conclusions reached without solid statistical underpinnings.
Moose:
The nerve of some people...inserting statistics into a conversation like this.
I will be curious to see if this new qualifying system brings together 20
runners who are, well, qualified. I would not be surprised to see, what,
between 6 and 8 of the entrants who do not match up well with the top
contenders.
Maybe I\'m wrong. Maybe Covel can chime in and report that he projects that the
entire field will have run TG tops within 3 points of the number he expects to
win the race.
We can dispense with any talk about patterns, because in my humble and
Thoroheretic opinion, this word does not apply to 3YOs making their fourth or
fifth lifetime start.
I don\'t know if this has been mentioned anywhere in these discussions, but why not keep one or two gates open to \"at large\" selections, such as in the Ryder Cup?
This way, a filly could stay in her division up until her Oaks/Derby prep and still have a shot at the Derby starting gate. Similarly, a standout Euro-based horse with some dirt breeding (Dr Devious) could also have a shot.
You could have a committee and the entire decision process could help pump up interest in the Derby. The choice would be made from those who are at 19-25 in the points race, plus other contenders deemed \"worthy\".
I would just make Derby points available in 3 or 4 races restricted to fillies:
BC Juvenile Fillies (do they still run this race?), Fair Grounds(owned by CD)
Oaks, plus one each a big 3YO filly race in Fla and Cal.
Would have to rig the points so that filly would have to win two and maybe
three of these races to make the Derby. Also could say that the leading
performer (points) in this 4 race series would be offered a Derby berth.
Hows that for a sub-plot?
\"We can dispense with any talk about patterns, because in my humble and
Thoroheretic opinion, this word does not apply to 3YOs making their fourth or fifth lifetime start\"
Bee,
Blasphemous,you are not drinking your Kool Aid. A definite pattern on the winner will emerge,most likely much clearer after the race.If the slowest, most unlikely horse wins, someone will post how they predicted the win from the countless possible interpretations.
Good pal Raggie Richie can show you why just about every winner was possible,off the sheets,after the race because no matter what data you use, you can back into the winner off one fig, running line, pattern, stat, etc.
Mike
You\'re right, all patterns are the same, there\'s no such thing as a pattern. That\'s why all those Thoro-Patterns (crude as they are) yield the same percentages.
PDub wrote:
\" have no idea what approach you\'re referring to. You make a lame Mike Smith reference, tell me to ignore them, then outlive people? I have no idea what you\'re trying to accomplish with this nonsense.\"
If you sincerely wish to see a reduction in the number of attacks on Mike Smith, then the best thing you can do is to start ignoring the attacks on Mike Smith. The reason for this is that at this point, you are walking around with a giant \"Push the button and watch PDub blow up\" sign on your back. On the other hand, if you do not mind seeing more attacks on Mike Smith as long as you get to position yourself as his defender, then you should keep doing what you\'ve been doing all these years.
\"You act as if having a filly will be some monumental story.\"
I do?
\"Three \"What\" Rings\"
I wrote \"what?\" because you got--and keep getting--her name wrong.
\"As to your question, what type of colt would be potentially be left out??\"
That wasn\'t my question. That question is unproductive because all it does is beget the retort, \"What kind of filly would potentially be left out?\" Then you start cherrypicking longshot colts and I start cherrypicking great fillies. It\'s worthless.
\"What about Giacomo, ridden by our buddy Mike Smith?? 3rd in the Sham, 2nd in the San Felipe, 4th in the SA Derby. What if we excluded this bum for some interesting filly?? Another uninteresting 50/1 winner, but hey, I guess you would rather watch some filly clunk up for 10th.\"
You are acting as if a filly bumping a colt who would have won the race leaves the race without a winner and the throne vacant. The race will still have a winner, PDub, and he/she will get the attention that winners get, and nobody will ever know that Giacomo would have won the race if only he had been allowed to back his way into it.
\"People won\'t find a filly any more interesting than they would finding out that Giacomo was named after Sting\'s son, if you\'re referring to casual fans.\"
I don\'t believe this and I don\'t think you do either. In fact, I don\'t think that anybody in the entire world believes this--including Sting. The Battle of the Sexes angle is an easy hook. Probably the easiest of them all.
JB,
Read more carefully.Did not see there are no patterns, said you can back into just about winner, after the race. Read your own board,quite a few over time.
Won\'t comment on TGI.
If you sincerely wish to see a reduction in the number of attacks on Mike Smith, then the best thing you can do is to start ignoring the attacks on Mike Smith. The reason for this is that at this point, you are walking around with a giant \"Push the button and watch PDub blow up\" sign on your back. On the other hand, if you do not mind seeing more attacks on Mike Smith as long as you get to position yourself as his defender, then you should keep doing what you\'ve been doing all these years.
- I don\'t respond to every \"Mike Smith attack\". When the \"lets bash Mike Smith era\" started, yeah I defended him often. I have since let it go, and have let the rest of you have your fun with it without any comment. Haven\'t \"blown up\" in a long time.
\"Three \"What\" Rings\"
I wrote \"what?\" because you got--and keep getting--her name wrong.
- Three Rings, Three Ring. Really??
As to your question, \"what type of colt would potentially be left out??\"
That wasn\'t my question.
-Your quote: \"Really, PDub, who do you think is likely to attract more interest in the Derby, a filly or the type of colt the filly would be keeping out?\"
I showed you a couple examples.
You are acting as if a filly bumping a colt who would have won the race leaves the race without a winner and the throne vacant.
- No, I\'m not. I\'m saying adding a filly, because she\'s a filly and draws a debatable amount of interest, isn\'t reason enough. And if we did this, we may have missed 2 of the greatest upsets in Derby history. That also creates interest, one reason being it will be talked about for many years. People also love improbable long shots.
The Battle of the Sexes angle is an easy hook. Probably the easiest of them all.
- Yes it is, as long as the female has a shot. Rich, I\'m not anti filly in the Derby, I\'m saying she should have to earn her way in. I say they should show they can compete against the boys in a prep, or do as Richie suggests and designate a race or races. I\'m aware of fillies running against boys often around the world, and as you also do enjoy watching them compete.
PDub wrote:
\"Three Rings, Three Ring. Really??\"
Yes, really, unless the New York Times is wrong, in which case, believe me, I\'m going to have a lot more fun with somebody else on this board than I would ever dare to have with you. And by the way: The circus implication of the name fits this string rather well.
\"When the \'lets bash Mike Smith era\' started, yeah I defended him often. I have since let it go, and have let the rest of you have your fun with it without any comment.\"
You commented yesterday, PDub. And unless my ability to identify writing styles lapsed during my hiatus, you still comment on it on the Rags board--albeit under a different name.
\" I\'m saying adding a filly, because she\'s a filly and draws a debatable amount of interest, isn\'t reason enough. And if we did this, we may have missed 2 of the greatest upsets in Derby history.\"
This goes to a problem that I have with your logic, PDub. If you are going to make the case, as you have been doing, that one never knows what will happen in a horse race, \"bums\" win, there are incredible upsets, etc., then, unless I woke up on the generous side of the bed, I am going to be inclined to point out that this exact same argument undermines your reasoning about people not being interested in \"watching some filly clunk up for 10th.\"
P Dub, you get a brief reply and then that\'s it for this wildly interesting discussion.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> P Dub, you get a brief reply and then that\'s it
> for this wildly interesting discussion.
Okie Dokie. I\'ll do my best......
I won\'t address the ridiculous Three Ring(s) name fiasco that has riled Rich far more than any Mike Smith reference. If I said Rock Hard (wrong last word), then I can see your point. Ring, Rings??
You commented yesterday, PDub. And unless my ability to identify writing styles lapsed during my hiatus, you still comment on it on the Rags board--albeit under a different name
I made a brief comment here, nothing close to a rant or anything else. You are really reaching here pal.
P-Dub is trademarked and can only be used on the TG board. I use Biz \"over there\", a nickname for one of my 3 dogs. I rarely post, and haven\'t since the Derby of last year.
If you are referring to the thread regarding last year\'s Derby ride, the one where I destroyed Cube to the point he was speechless....that wasn\'t defending Mike Smith specifically. I would have made that post regardless of whomever rode that horse. Coincidentally, it was Smith.
This goes to a problem that I have with your logic, PDub. If you are going to make the case, as you have been doing, that one never knows what will happen in a horse race, \"bums\" win, there are incredible upsets, etc., then, unless I woke up on the generous side of the bed, I am going to be inclined to point out that this exact same argument undermines your reasoning about people not being interested in \"watching some filly clunk up for 10th.\"
Last time. Those examples were of horses that EARNED their way in. They followed the rules, had enough earnings, and per the rules belonged in the starting gate. If a Filly EARNS it fine. Thats it.
You want to exclude a horse that has earned their way in, because a filly is more \"interesting\", and I pointed out 2 historic (mutuel wise) runnings of the race that would have never happened.
You asked what type of horse would be excluded if we allow a filly to run? You said you never said that, until I reproduced the exact quote which said otherwise. My response was the 2 longshot winners. This doesn\'t undermine anything, and your inability to comprehend my points is what has allowed this thread to veer out of control.
Not really brief JB, but thats the best I can do.
P-Dub Wrote:
>
> The Battle of the Sexes angle is an easy hook.
> Probably the easiest of them all.
>
> - Yes it is, as long as the female has a shot.
> Rich, I\'m not anti filly in the Derby, I\'m saying
> she should have to earn her way in. I say they
> should show they can compete against the boys in a
> prep, or do as Richie suggests and designate a
> race or races. I\'m aware of fillies running
> against boys often around the world, and as you
> also do enjoy watching them compete.
Off the top of my head, fillies\' win and ITM placements stats are significantly higher than that of colts. Which indicates that they are managed better than the average, yet you are asking them to manage them differently than they\'d possibly do. Who exactly does that benefit? Certainly not the horse.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> P Dub, you get a brief reply and then that\'s it
> for this wildly interesting discussion.
Why would you put the brakes on an interesting discussion that readers here are enjoying, hence the number of posts?
So let me get this straight...some of you want to allow a filly to run with the boys without proving she can run with the boys? I don\'t see the issue with asking a filly to run in a race like the SA or FL Derby to earn the points required to make the KD.
If the filly is the star that some are using in their examples then she should have no trouble earning the necessary points.
PonyBologna Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So let me get this straight...some of you want to
> allow a filly to run with the boys without proving
> she can run with the boys? I don\'t see the issue
> with asking a filly to run in a race like the SA
> or FL Derby to earn the points required to make
> the KD.
>
> If the filly is the star that some are using in
> their examples then she should have no trouble
> earning the necessary points.
Are the colts all stars? What if we made that demand of them? It\'d reduce the field to perhaps a colt or two.
I\'d rather the owners/trainers manage their fillies instead of Churchill Downs. We saw what 2 tough dirt routes can do to a horse like Rachel, didn\'t we? Fillies can have equal or superior talent but they\'re not as physically strong as their male counterparts.
Oh, you\'re beating this to death. Newflash; 3-year old fillies have a race, it\'s called the Kentucky Oaks.