I always lurk on this forum, because I get pounded down by the far more knowledgeable folks here anytime I post
However- I work in biosciences- and they talk about the distinction between genotype and phenotype in my business
Genotype- what your DNA contains- all the information that comes from your predecessors
Phenotype- how that DNA expresses itself in a living being- the real being with \"hooves on the ground\"
Genotype will help you generally predict the traits of a population of organisms, but there are always outliers in any population- and thats what I think CC represents
The folks who think California Chrome is destined to lose to other horses due to their \"superior\" breeding lines are ignoring the phenotypic evidence that he is showing time after time on the track. He has whatever extra juice and desire to want to beat the other horses- that\'s sometime rare to find in these animals that are often comfortable in a \"herd\" mode. CC has that alpha male thing going big time
If he draws the rail at Churchill, I\'ll stay away. But any other draw and he\'s clearly the best horse in this field. Kind of like Big Brown was- and I hope we don\'t find out there are any drugs this time...
Thanks!
The first part of your post whets my appetite for more info/facts (in lay terms please). As for opinions, there is usually someone around who needs to make others wrong as a strategy to promote their own opinion as right. For what purpose is puzzling?
As with Zenyatta, it\'s not hard to show \"phenotype\" superiority when you race against nothing but tomato cans.
There are several east coast horses that could have shown the same \"phenotype\" superiority had they been in CCs place in the SA races this spring. Unless you are trying to make an argument that TG figures are incredibly wrong.
CC number wise is just fine
Don\'t let east coast-centric viewpoint cloud your vision
That is some horse!
Now, betting the favorite goes against my grain too
But he towers over the current field
This time I\'m likely to play him at 2-1 or better, he just looks like the real deal to me
TreadHead Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As with Zenyatta, it\'s not hard to show
> \"phenotype\" superiority when you race against
> nothing but tomato cans.
She had many races with weak competition. When she did travel she beat everyone but one horse. Even the biggest Zenyatta haters on this board recognized what a phenomenal performance she put in at Churchill Downs.
Here is a generalization for you to ponder - ANYBODY who makes absolute assertions without any objective evidence or comprehensible logic to back up those assertions is gonna get pounded by some and ignored by most on this site.
Those style posts make the poster appear uninformed, subjective and fanatical to a fault to, at least, me. and I am not one of the accomplished analysts to be found hear-abouts.
Wouldn\'t the same thing happen in your work environment? E.g. If I assert all horses have roughly comparable phenotype because they have the same number of legs and run around in groups. Do I appear informed?
Tell us about how your science applies, if it does, and share your evidence with those of us that are unfamiliar.
By the way, what probability (as a %) do you attribute to CC\'s chances of matching General ARod\'s number on a cold sloppy track in Kentucky with mud in his eye? God forbid!