Okay.. Casino Drive or Big Brown, whose side are you on?
Moderators: Roguelet, hpkingjr, WaveMaster
belmont
I just think that Casino Drive will have to be BETTER than his brother and sister if he is to beat Big Brown. They both ran around 2:28 and I just feel that Big Brown is capable of 2:26+ or better. I really don't remember having this much anticipation with the other 6 or 7 who have had a shot at the TC recently. How many days til post?
hi zinn21
The point is
...a hot dog eating contest is (for the most part) about quantity.
A horse race (for the most part) is NOT.
To each his/her own
.
Best.
Respectfully
zinn21 wrote:FOS wrote:George William Smith wrote:I love the fact that with the exception of only two Triple Crown winners (Big Brown's) beaten more opponents in the Derby and Preakness already that the rest have beaten throughout all three Triple Crown events....Unless it is a match race, he will break the record of beating the most opponents IF he wins.
Respectfully George W S...you surprise me with your enthusiasm (if you will) re such a record .
When it comes to quantity records...(said tongue in cheek) seems to me that the Nathan's hot dog eating contest record would be more compelling to most (including most horsemen/women) than the record you describe above.
Oh well...to each his/her own.
Best.
Respectfully
George, there's nothing wrong with your previous mentioned stat. It further supports compelling evidence of BB's ability. FOS, comparing a hot dog eating contest to beating horses in Grade I's? To each his own for sure. ...
The point is
...a hot dog eating contest is (for the most part) about quantity.
A horse race (for the most part) is NOT.
To each his/her own
.
Best.
Respectfully
-
George William Smith
- Restricted Stakes Winner
- Posts: 756
- Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 1:48 pm
- Location: Edmonton, Alberta
- Contact:
Great respect Fos
Appreciate your input.
However, the more in a race, the more that can go wrong and the greater the chance that the best horse will not win if the horse in question cannot control the events through sheer brilliance.
On the other hand, in the old days.....yikes never thought I'd say that....when a horse like Secretariat beat 12 in the Derby, only 5 faced him in the Preakness and only 4 in the Belmont. Not much traffic trouble, but then owners didn't put their horses in the race where their horses could get beat up since there were far fewer well-paying stakes and they wanted a horse with a good attitude.
The same happened with Alydar and Affirmed...9 opponents to the pair in the Derby, 5 in the Preakness and 3 in the Belmont. So they could pretty well beat each other up without much interference.
There seemed to be also a code to let the best horses give a chance to show their best for the public. Not so today, with owners taking their shot and often having their shot compromise the better horses in the race. Also the trainers that go along with putting horses that don't fit the field in the race.
I'm all for big fields as the truly great horses can still win when multiple horse entries or trainer buddies having a goal of compromising the perceived best horse in the field. I'll scratch your back this year and maybe you will next year for me. The only two things that are important are that one of helps the other have the best chance to win and if a super star gets in the way, so be it.
Appreciate your input.
However, the more in a race, the more that can go wrong and the greater the chance that the best horse will not win if the horse in question cannot control the events through sheer brilliance.
On the other hand, in the old days.....yikes never thought I'd say that....when a horse like Secretariat beat 12 in the Derby, only 5 faced him in the Preakness and only 4 in the Belmont. Not much traffic trouble, but then owners didn't put their horses in the race where their horses could get beat up since there were far fewer well-paying stakes and they wanted a horse with a good attitude.
The same happened with Alydar and Affirmed...9 opponents to the pair in the Derby, 5 in the Preakness and 3 in the Belmont. So they could pretty well beat each other up without much interference.
There seemed to be also a code to let the best horses give a chance to show their best for the public. Not so today, with owners taking their shot and often having their shot compromise the better horses in the race. Also the trainers that go along with putting horses that don't fit the field in the race.
I'm all for big fields as the truly great horses can still win when multiple horse entries or trainer buddies having a goal of compromising the perceived best horse in the field. I'll scratch your back this year and maybe you will next year for me. The only two things that are important are that one of helps the other have the best chance to win and if a super star gets in the way, so be it.
I am excited about this race. I am SORT OF pulling for Casino Drive because I love this dam family and would like to see Better Than Honor get it done with three Belmont winners. But I think Big Brown has a slightly better chance based on everything I can add up. However, I don't think he'll smoke Casino Drive and he'll have to work for it. Also, Casino Drive has potential to become something very special in his own right. As lightly raced as he is, he has shown some serious ability and he might get a lot better. Does he have to better than Rags to beat Big Brown? Yeah probably in my humble opinion, although I don't think we'll ever know how special she really was and I don't think Big Brown would have smoked her either. He might have beaten her, but he would have had to work for it. Nothing new....and one other thing. I remember looking at Big Brown's pedigree and thinking that he was very well bred, along with being heavily in-bred. This to me is an example of how in-breeding came sometimes come through with the right collision of all those heavy hitter genes and get an impressive result. It might even help him be a freakishly good sire, although odds are against most good racehorses that they will be truly successful as sires. As for Boundary, I remember thinking at one time that Boundary had produced some good racehorses with a book of modest mares, and I believed that his a.e.i. was stronger than that of his mares, meaning he had improved them. I am not sure I remember this right....does anyone know?
-
bdw0617
- Darley line
- Posts: 9206
- Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 10:19 pm
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
- Contact:
Mac wrote:I am excited about this race. I am SORT OF pulling for Casino Drive because I love this dam family and would like to see Better Than Honor get it done with three Belmont winners. But I think Big Brown has a slightly better chance based on everything I can add up. However, I don't think he'll smoke Casino Drive and he'll have to work for it. Also, Casino Drive has potential to become something very special in his own right. As lightly raced as he is, he has shown some serious ability and he might get a lot better. Does he have to better than Rags to beat Big Brown? Yeah probably in my humble opinion, although I don't think we'll ever know how special she really was and I don't think Big Brown would have smoked her either. He might have beaten her, but he would have had to work for it. Nothing new....and one other thing. I remember looking at Big Brown's pedigree and thinking that he was very well bred, along with being heavily in-bred. This to me is an example of how in-breeding came sometimes come through with the right collision of all those heavy hitter genes and get an impressive result. It might even help him be a freakishly good sire, although odds are against most good racehorses that they will be truly successful as sires. As for Boundary, I remember thinking at one time that Boundary had produced some good racehorses with a book of modest mares, and I believed that his a.e.i. was stronger than that of his mares, meaning he had improved them. I am not sure I remember this right....does anyone know?
EXCELLENT post. you just said what I have been trying to say for 10 pages in 2 paragraphs.
"When the solution is simple, God is answering.”
- Einstein
- Einstein
hi George William Smith
I appreciate your input, opinions, insights etc etc and believe that many (including me) are the fortunate beneficiaries of your knowledge and experience, which you often share so generously. Many thanks.
Seems to me that BB was fortunate to draw the far outside #20 post to the extent that had he drawn more into the area where there was so much contact after the break...I'm not so sure (as you apparently are) that his "brilliance" (your word) would have been enough to save his day re the the convergence of traffic, contact, bumping, checking and events in general that wreaked havoc on so many.
Although I undertand your logic (at least I think I do)...in this particular discussion I don't find your quantity stat as compelling as others might, but that's (largely) because the size of fields (as a stat in and of itself) rarely tells the whole story...and it can (at least to my way of thinking) all too often be a misleading stat.
I would suggest that the full 20 horse Kentucky Derby-2008 field, coupled with Big Brown's far outside #20 post position played-out/proved-to-be to BB's advantage...not his disadvantage.
That's not intended to take anything away from (what I might describe as) BB's sparkling performance and Desormeaux's excellent ride. Fact is though (as least to my way of thinking) BB not only had (for starters) a clean break, but also the extremely good fortune to be to the far right and completely clear of the eventful convergence of traffic (after the break) that all but ended (or at the very least compromised) the chances of those (many) that were in tight quarters, boxed-in, checked, bumped-around, had no where to go etc etc etc.
I can only speculate as to what the outcome of this year's Kentucky Derby might have been had the convergence and resulting events not occured...or had BB broken from a post that likley would have placed him amidst the converging/eventful action.
Speculation aside though...All Things Considered that actually DID happen (at least from my perspective) leads me to believe, and seems to support the notion/position, that BB's far outside #20 post benefited (not hindered) him, and the eventful convergence of heavy traffic hindered others (ergo...a benefit to BB).
Am I a big fan (in general) of HUGE fields? NO, but when I watch a race like Ky Derby-2008 unfold, beginning with 20 horses loaded in the starting gates...I watch VERY closely (as I would whether it was a small field or a max 20 horse field) and try to observe, digest it all, then evaluate what I saw. For what it's worth...I would submit also that smaller fields too can sometimes help/benefit some, and not others.
My general assessment (short version
) of the 2008 running of the Ky Derby is that the winner, Big Brown 1/ had a near-perfect (if not perfect) break, 2/ was NOT impeded by any horse/s (the convergence/bumping/checking etc etc etc was well to the inside of him), 3/ had a heady, quality-ride by a savvy Desormeaux, 4/ had a near perfect (if not perfect) trip, and 5/ appeared (to me anyway) to be a very worthy winner...and arguably much the best. BB made it look easy.
As for the rest of the 20 horse field...those (many) that were among the traffic and bumper-cars-like convergence (whether checked/bumped/in tight quarters etc etc) and/or experienced a not-so-clean trip...were unfortunate to have their chances compromised.
Conclusions...BB benefited from a clean break and a near perfect (if not perfect) contact-free trip in a Kentucky Derby that saw many other contenders'/hopefuls' chances diminish (if not disappear) early-on as a result of a convergence of horses (and simultaneous unfolding of events) which (from my perspective) likely compromised the chances of some Derby starters that arguably could/would/might have otherwise posed a threat to the winner. Such is racing luck and the luck of the draw...such is horseracing.
Was BB a worthy winner? Yes (to my way of thinking).
Kentucky Derby-2008 unfolded in a fashion which (from my perspective anyway) benefited the winner and arguably affected some challengers adversely. Again...such is horseracing.
Best.
Respectfully
I appreciate your input, opinions, insights etc etc and believe that many (including me) are the fortunate beneficiaries of your knowledge and experience, which you often share so generously. Many thanks.
George William Smith wrote:Great respect Fos
Appreciate your input.
However, the more in a race, the more that can go wrong and the greater the chance that the best horse will not win if the horse in question cannot control the events through sheer brilliance. ...
... ... ...
Seems to me that BB was fortunate to draw the far outside #20 post to the extent that had he drawn more into the area where there was so much contact after the break...I'm not so sure (as you apparently are) that his "brilliance" (your word) would have been enough to save his day re the the convergence of traffic, contact, bumping, checking and events in general that wreaked havoc on so many.
Although I undertand your logic (at least I think I do)...in this particular discussion I don't find your quantity stat as compelling as others might, but that's (largely) because the size of fields (as a stat in and of itself) rarely tells the whole story...and it can (at least to my way of thinking) all too often be a misleading stat.
I would suggest that the full 20 horse Kentucky Derby-2008 field, coupled with Big Brown's far outside #20 post position played-out/proved-to-be to BB's advantage...not his disadvantage.
That's not intended to take anything away from (what I might describe as) BB's sparkling performance and Desormeaux's excellent ride. Fact is though (as least to my way of thinking) BB not only had (for starters) a clean break, but also the extremely good fortune to be to the far right and completely clear of the eventful convergence of traffic (after the break) that all but ended (or at the very least compromised) the chances of those (many) that were in tight quarters, boxed-in, checked, bumped-around, had no where to go etc etc etc.
I can only speculate as to what the outcome of this year's Kentucky Derby might have been had the convergence and resulting events not occured...or had BB broken from a post that likley would have placed him amidst the converging/eventful action.
Speculation aside though...All Things Considered that actually DID happen (at least from my perspective) leads me to believe, and seems to support the notion/position, that BB's far outside #20 post benefited (not hindered) him, and the eventful convergence of heavy traffic hindered others (ergo...a benefit to BB).
Am I a big fan (in general) of HUGE fields? NO, but when I watch a race like Ky Derby-2008 unfold, beginning with 20 horses loaded in the starting gates...I watch VERY closely (as I would whether it was a small field or a max 20 horse field) and try to observe, digest it all, then evaluate what I saw. For what it's worth...I would submit also that smaller fields too can sometimes help/benefit some, and not others.
My general assessment (short version
) of the 2008 running of the Ky Derby is that the winner, Big Brown 1/ had a near-perfect (if not perfect) break, 2/ was NOT impeded by any horse/s (the convergence/bumping/checking etc etc etc was well to the inside of him), 3/ had a heady, quality-ride by a savvy Desormeaux, 4/ had a near perfect (if not perfect) trip, and 5/ appeared (to me anyway) to be a very worthy winner...and arguably much the best. BB made it look easy.
As for the rest of the 20 horse field...those (many) that were among the traffic and bumper-cars-like convergence (whether checked/bumped/in tight quarters etc etc) and/or experienced a not-so-clean trip...were unfortunate to have their chances compromised.
Conclusions...BB benefited from a clean break and a near perfect (if not perfect) contact-free trip in a Kentucky Derby that saw many other contenders'/hopefuls' chances diminish (if not disappear) early-on as a result of a convergence of horses (and simultaneous unfolding of events) which (from my perspective) likely compromised the chances of some Derby starters that arguably could/would/might have otherwise posed a threat to the winner. Such is racing luck and the luck of the draw...such is horseracing.
Was BB a worthy winner? Yes (to my way of thinking).
Kentucky Derby-2008 unfolded in a fashion which (from my perspective anyway) benefited the winner and arguably affected some challengers adversely. Again...such is horseracing.
Best.
Respectfully