Orb

[ajkreider]

One thing I don\'t get about the \"not fully cranked\" view of training, especially in regard to Orb, is why run the horse at all?

If he\'s ready now, just train him up to the Derby rather than run the risk of injury overextending against a couple of really fast horses.  If he needs to get something out of another race, doesn\'t he need to be \"fully cranked\" to get that benefit?  The horse likely has the points, so that not the issue.  If he\'s not all in for the Florida Derby, he won\'t get a serious paycheck or the Grade 1 by his name either.

Seems like if a trainer doesn\'t want or need a horse at 100% for this race, the safest choice is not to race.

[covelj70]

the answer to that one is easy

he needs to get the fitness out of a race

you can\'t get the same fitness level out of breezing a horse as you do racing a horse

you can\'t run a 1 1/4 off of 1 1 1/16 race 10 weeks before the Derby.  Heck, only a few years ago, Matz was crucified before the Derby for bringing Babaro in off 6 weeks.

I think there\'s a misconception here that I am saying Shug will run a short horse next weekend.

that\'s not what I am saying at all.  there\'s a huge difference between between \"fully cranked\" for a race and running a short horse.  In other words, you can crank some of the dials but not all of them.

[miff]

Lots of differences of opinion if you talk to enough trainers. Of Nafzager, a noted NY trainer told me he was nuts for jogging/galloping horses the day after they raced.Most walk.

Of Tricky, who often blew out a horse 3f the morning of the race,he was called clueless by another NY trainer.

Jim points out the different and generous legal weapons available to trainers, some used sparingly, some very liberally.Gambling outfits will race a horse cold a start or two,then use all the legal stuff in the third start and bet their money.

At the end if the day and in the long run it comes down to the ability of the horse, the trainers skill,the vets legal help.

Mike

[Caradoc]

Jim,

We can agree to disagree and that is fine.  I just want to be clear about the issue and also to see whether your example really supports the point.  The issue is not generally whether trainers try to point a horse for a given race but instead whether a trainer in a campaign can make the very fine adjustments necessary for a horse to under-perform, but only slightly so, to get the horse really ready for the race after.  Getting a horse ready for a race off a long layoff or any of the other topics raised in this thread are interesting but not the main one.

Fort Larned came into the BC Classic with a top of negative 1¼, which he had run in 5 of his prior 6 starts.  The only time he had failed to run that race was in the Stephen Foster, when he had experienced a lot of trouble at the start; the fact that this trouble really bothered him was evident by his race two weeks later in the Cornhusker, when he immediately repeated his top.  Let's say that Wilkes told the entire world before the JCGC that he FL wasn't fully cranked up for the race, that he was using it as a prep for the BC Classic.  If he had said that it would have been strange for a number of reasons, including that the winners purse for the JCGC was 600K, it was a Grade I, and who knows for certain how many races any thoroughbred left?  On top of that FL had been in training for over a year and half and there could be no assurance that he would stay together one more race for the BC Classic.  Still, assume that Wilkes had not dialed the knobs for the JCGC but then tried to do so for the BC Classic.  How then do you explain that despite the different preparation methods he paired his top in both races?

[miff]

Caradoc,

Get your point but you are using the figures as science,they are not.Dont want to set off another string but all paired figs are not necessarily equal racetrack performances.

Mike

[Caradoc]

Maybe a 3 isn\'t always a 3 (a 3 run by a speed horse contesting a hot pace as opposed to a 3 run by a closer into a hot pace) but beyond those, what are the bases for a handicapper to make the sort of adjustments or interpretations that are necessary in the FL example? Why in his case is there a difference in the negative ones he kept running over and over again?

[miff]

Caradoc,

If you watch enough races, understand track speed and race dynamics,good old common racing sense is pretty good.App 22% of the time, the top fig makers disagree by more than the value of one TG point.What do you think that means as to using any fig as Gospel?

Mike

[Caradoc]

Mike,

I get all that, as my example of how in certain circumstances a 3 may not be a 3 indicates, but that has nothing to do with the example Jim raised and the one I\'m trying to discuss.  That example is FL\'s races in the JCGC and BC Classic, in which at least on TG (and I thought we were using the numbers at least as the starting point for analysis) were pairs, and were the same number on the page as he had run virtually all year.

[miff]

Car,

Get your point and Jim\'s as well.A trainer may finds a certain MO to be successful for them.If Wilkes purposely tried to not have FL at his best and he still ran a paired fig( but not win) well then that sort of speaks to how tough it is to have a horse run precisely to the trainers preparation.

Seriously don\'t think there\'s an answer to this if that\'s what you are looking for. On this particular trainer issue, why is it that these issues come up with the talented/fast horses they train vs the slugs they train, get it? Look at the lifetime stats of Nafzager/Wilkes,pretty common, outside of a few very talanted/fast runners.What would be said of Nafzager, for example, if Unbridled or Street Sense did not show up in his barn?

Guess you can see I believe it\'s mostly about the horse, not too much about who trains them.

[covelj70]

Cardoc,

I think the concept gets easier to get your head around (at least for me) if we leave out the good older horses who consistently run negative numbers and aren\'t suppossed to be getting any faster with each race and instead focus on young, developing 3 year olds who should, according to JB, pair or top with relative frequency.

for a young, healthy horse that suppossed to be getting better each race or every other race, this issue of how much a trainer wants them to move forward in a given race is more relevant.

As I said, some trainers have their firsters ready to fire huge first out (look at the Pletcher firster out of Wait a While last weekend).  You think that horse would have run a 99 beyer (sorry JB don\'t know the thorograph number on that one) if Mott trained that horse.  Obviously not.

So, pletcher got the horse fully or nearly fully cranked first out which is why so many of his go backward during their 3 year old campaigns and why he is 1-31 in the Derry with Super Saver as the only winner (sorry Jimbo, I know it still hurts).

Let\'s take Verazzano, does anyone think that Verazzano (am I spelling it right yet?)would have run a 2 negative in his second start if Shug was his trainer?  No chance.

I think the horse would have likely gotten to the 2 negative eventually if Shug or Mott trained him but it might have come later in the year than Pletcher got it out of him.

So, if Orb got sold after the FOY and trainsferred to the Pletcher barn, I think his chances of running a new top would be alot higher next weekend than with Shug as his trainer.  Not because I think Pletcher is better than Shug but because he turns the dials up to their highest levels in every race.

Is is a coincidence that the only horse Pletcher won with in the Derby is the one he was forced to go slow with early in that horses 3 year old year because of some physical issues he was dealing with?  He couldn\'t fully crank super saver for the preps (which is why he was still moving forward at Derby time) compared to all of the others that were over the top by the time the Derby rolled around.  

Jimbo, apologies again about the Super Saver analogies but it\'s just too fun!

[TGJB]

Miff-- if it\'s really true that the other figure makers agree with us 78% of the time what it means is they got better. And I\'m sorry to hear it.

Jim-- while I agree that trainers do point for races and totally crank up for them, that\'s a totally different issue from dialing back. I doubt very much trainers are doing that. (I don\'t think there\'s a chance in hell Wilkes was worrying about the BC before the JC. At that point the JC was a very big deal, the BC was in California and he can\'t have expected to win it).

To believe Shug is doing that you would have to believe he\'s changed EVERYTHING from when he trained Easy Goer, who ran on 2 weeks rest in the Gotham, Wood, Derby and Preakness. Instead, what he and everyone else has done is pay more attention to spacing (in which my efforts on Post Time probably played a part). They deal with the big effort question by giving the horses more time to recover-- like 5 weeks from the Fla Derby to Kentucky.

[PonyBologna]

From Haskins. Seems he at least agrees with Jim that Orb won\'t be \"fully cranked\" on Saturday.

\"No pressure on him at all in the Florida Derby. He already has enough projected points and with his style of running, he only needs to be closing at the end to set him up for the Derby. If he wins, fine. Knowing McGaughey, he's more interested in having him peak on the first Saturday in May, and the way he's been progressing with each race he seems ready to do just that.\"

[covelj70]

Lol

I knew I thought Haskin was really smart

[PonyBologna]

Jim,

It seems some in the thread mistook \"not fully cranked\" for \"dialed down\". I, and Steve, know the difference.

[richiebee]

James:

Is it true that if Orb and Data Link, both owned by the Phipps/Janney partnership
that has operated the Bessemer Trust since 1907, have outstanding years, that the
minimum participation in Bessemer will be cut in half ... to 5 million dollars?