Lucky Pulpit vs. Tapit

[TGJB]

CP ran a 1 in his first GP start.

[miff]

...was just gonna say, my sheets have CP with 1 which is what Beyer(adjusted) had

[Wrongly]

Ok, needed something to kill some time since I don\'t want to watch the local news coverage of the game tonight.

It\'s a long time from Dec. to may was I was curious how many horses have preformed well in Dec. and still run big in May.  Secondly I was interested in seeing how many of the winners were able to pair up big efforts.

Of the derby entries since 2000, only eight horses ran a 1 or better as a 2-year old:
Normandy Invasion - (1),1,1,3,1,5 that 1 coming in Nov. 4th
Mucho Macho Man (-1)2,3,4,0,4 zero coming in Nov. finished 3rd
Jackson Bend (8)2,4,2,0,5 with zero in Oct. finished 12th
** Eight Belles (0)1,1,0,1,7 with 1 in Jan. kind of interesting finish 2nd
Pyro (5)10,2,3,-1,3 with -1 coming in Oct. finished 8th
Street Sense (-2)2,1,-2,5,6 with the -2 in the BC in Nov. won
Hard Spun (-1)1,2,2,2,4,8 with that first 2 in Dec. similar finished 2nd
Scat Daddy (14)0,1,4,5,1,5 with that 1 in Oct. finished 18
High Limit (24)1,1,2,1 with that 1 in Oct. finished last
Smarty Jones (-1)-1,-3,0,0,0,5 with that 2nd start in Nov. being the zero

All of these were pretty nice horse. Surprised there wasn\'t more entries with a big 2-year old fig.  Guess my decision is if CC is more like Smarty or more like High Limit?

[gohorse]

Art Sherman Has CC working At LA.  The new track has the longest stretch in American racing at 1380ft.Do you guys think this will help CC get ready for the long stretch (1235ft) at CD?

[Tavasco]

richiebee - your posts entertain - thanks.

I meant \"steam\" in the way J. Covello (how about J-Co) uses the term \"hot air dispersing into nothingness\". However, I watched the replay of Saturday\'s 10th at KEE. Then watched it over and over again. I favored your #6 but it looked a pic em. Did not see the still motion. Stewards probably hesitant to call two DH\'s. Astute pic on your part. Very unlucky (GD %#!*) beat.  Plug - The KEE website has excellent quality video replays.

Oliver Zip also looked unlucky to get broadsided by the Admiral maybe costing him the win? I agree a Nice Horse.

The Parkland analogy is a hoot! as well as you\'re spelling of whas his name.

Once again I am reminded, that when the cause of events is truly mysterious, it is more apt to be the result of incompetence than it is competence.

[gteasy]

Midnight Hawk went to Sunland on short rest following a stressful loss to CC...
surprised he ran that well...think he\'s better than Chitu who was fresh...Hawk
should go forward with spacing.

[jimbo66]

Chitu has faced midnight hawk twice.  Trounced him both times. The first time without even having route experience

Saying midnight hawk is better is like saying Kentucky is better than Uconn.

[Tavasco]

The way I see it, the only problem with his New Mexico race was that they gave Kentucky Derby qualifying points for it.

[P-Dub]

TreadHead Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
  P-Dub listed horses in a different
> response where surface did not matter (most of
> them before the synth was put in at SA, making it
> fairly irrelevant to this discussion, but
> whatever) and that\'s all well and good, but for
> every horse that is able to duplicate their
> efforts over a very different track type, you can
> probably find one that fails.
>

If Silver Charm and others never left California before the Derby, performed well on a dirt track, then ran well or won the Kentucky Derby, how is that irrelevant?

You\'re suggesting that the dirt surface pre synthetic is that much different than the post synthetic dirt surface??

Of course you can find a horse that fails over a different surface, as well as find a horse that duplicates their effort. I could find horses from every circuit that ran well at CD and others that ran poorly.

So using your logic, I can find a horse from Gulfstream Park that ran poorly in the Derby and then surmise that other horses will do the same thing.  I\'ll just conveniently ignore the ones that don\'t support my opinion, just as you choose to ignore the one\'s from California that dispel yours.

You then say Game On Dude ran well on glib So Cal surfaces, then say he failed at CD.  Yeah, getting run down at the wire in the BC Classic and getting beat a step or 2 in the Clark is such a failure.  He also won at Charlestown.  Getting beat doesn\'t mean you didn\'t run well. You can run your race and still get beat.

What you have said is that CC won\'t duplicate his performance over a different surface, yet you have offered nothing factual to support your claims. This game is about odds. As a favorite, it makes sense to take a chance he won\'t.  If he wasn\'t the favorite and depending on his odds, it would be wise to think differently.

But whatever.

[Topcat]

TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jim-- I have made mistakes. You just weren\'t
> around when I made them.
>
> One involved a horse called Elite Mercedes. I
> agreed with Walden about running him on 2 weeks
> rest in the Arkansas Derby off an effort, a) not
> realizing until after the entries came out he
> would spot weight under the then allowance
> conditions, which cost him second and the earnings
> he needed for the Derby, and b) after running on
> short rest the horse got hurt and was never the
> same.
>
> And I\'m haunted to this day by the idea that
> running License Fee in the Molly Pitcher, 3rd
> start in 5 weeks, cost that great mare her life.
> She had won about 5 in a row, was 3/5, it was an
> easy spot... she died on the track.


Appreciate your candor.  Those were tough spots, indeed.

[TreadHead]

PDub, not sure if you are suggesting that Santa Anita put the dirt from the old track into dump trucks for 3 years and then simply replaced it when the time came, and I really hope you aren\'t trying to dumb down the discussion to say \"dirt is dirt\", because either of those are obviously ridiculous.

From everything I read, SA went to great lengths to come up with a new \"state-of-the-art\" dirt surface for the replacement.  I\'m in no position to judge the significance of the difference between old and new, but it factually is different, which to me means that using horses that ran over the old surface (let alone horses that ran nearly 2 decades ago) is pretty much irrelevant to the discussion I\'m trying to have.

I\'ve made quite a few factual statements.  It is factually correct that some horses win impressively over the new SA surface (and others like it) and can\'t duplicate it other places that are more demanding, while other horses fair well over multiple different types of dirt.  I\'m completely missing how anyone could even possibly dispute this.

It\'s factually correct to say that we don\'t know which of those 2 categories CC falls into yet, because the only dirt course he\'s run over is SA.  It\'s factually correct that we\'ve never had a Derby winner with an AWD on both sides below 7F (at least as long as I\'ve been alive).  The length of his stride seems to be open to interpretation, and certainly no expert in judging that, but it certainly is unfortunate we will not get to see a workout over the CD strip to see how he looks in a full-speed scenario.

Since you didn\'t seem to understand this logic above and incorrectly stated it, I\'ll help.  Using my(?) (any normal person\'s?) logic, some horses that ran well at GP will run well at CD and others will not, it\'s not rocket science.  The key question we are trying to get to here is trying to figure out which factors may help you predict which of those 2 categories a horse is going to fall into when they try CD for the first time.

Its factually correct that certain horses that have dominated over the new SA surface have not been able to duplicate their results at CD.  This \"failure\" comes in many shades, from the complete falling on their face, like Goldencents, to the subtle 1 or 2 points off their best, like GoD.  

Maybe it\'s not correct to call it a \"failure\", but despite TGJBs objections, GoD is exactly the kind of subtle difference that is possible, and from what I see, those subtle differences can make a difference in who wins.  It can appear to be a \"good\" and \"competitive\" race, but on his sheet its a point or 2 below his best.  It\'s not good enough to just run a \"good\" race or \"near your best\" on Derby Day, horses that win the Derby run their best.

I\'ve made no definitive statements about CC at all.  I\'ve said I\'m making guesses about what I feel he is likely to do, based on a number of different factors.  I\'m openly admitting it is a guess, as anyone guessing he is likely to run a new top should admit to themselves as well.

The fact of the matter is, as anyone who has used this board and seminars before knows, that very few horses run new tops in the Derby.  If we end up with 7 or 8 horses in the 0 to 1 range, the odds tell us that only one or two of those is likely to move forward on derby day.  Seems like many people feel CC will be one of those horses because he is a \"freak\" (a freak with no negative numbers? OK).  When I look at CC compared to the others in his range, I see him as one of the least likely to move forward at 10F at CD.

I\'m not necessarily saying CC is going to fall on his face like Goldencents did, his pace profile is much stronger than GC was, though still not as strong as I would like to see compared to other winners like even IHA (though I have not see the pace figs from the SA Derby yet).  But anything from being a step off, like GoD was, to completely useless like GC was, or anything in between, spells defeat for CC in this Derby.  And even if he were not the favorite, I will be betting on something in that range as the likely outcome.

[P-Dub]

You\'re obviously emotional attached to this discussion, so I\'ll just let it be.  JB and others have shown the holes in your logic, but you\'re going to spend 10,000 words continuing to prove your point.

Dumbing it down and other insults add nothing to your poor logic. You\'re the only one that needs glasses for this discussion, but you continue to squint.

Last thing.  You say the old results are irrelevant, because SA has \"new dirt\".  You then try to make your point by using the example of a sprinter/miler. If you\'re going to discount the \"old dirt\", and specifically target the \"new dirt\", then your sample size is pretty small.

Good luck with your wagers.