Preakness pick

bdw0617 · Postby **bdw0617** » Sun May 22, 2011 8:48 pm

that 3rd place by astrology was the worst thing that could have happened to him. now they think he has talent.

diomed · Postby **diomed** » Mon May 23, 2011 2:39 am

bdw0617 wrote:that 3rd place by astrology was the worst thing that could have happened to him. now they think he has talent.

??? The horse has never finished out of the money. Yet, they are skipping the Belmont. He has talent. I don't understand your take on him at all. They seem to be doing the right thing with him. He ran a very good race Saturday.

TJ · Postby TJ » Mon May 23, 2011 7:02 am

jellac wrote:There was an interesting head-on photo of AK and Shack coming down to the wire in today's sports section. While JV is sititng balanced and tight on Animal Kingdom, looking straight at the finish line with AK lined up straight underneath him; Shackleford is all crooked - his front legs are tracking in one direction and his hind legs are tracking a different way altogether and his jockey is canted way to the inside of the track, almost like he's falling off the horse somewhat. Anyone else see that particular shot and if so what was that all about? Still no shame in a very game second to a tough as nails Shackleford. .

Hi Jellac,
From what I saw AK and JV were moving along as if they were going to run over Shack. JV was whipping left handed then some where inside the 1/16th pole JV switched to a right stick and AK drifted in some coming very near and behind Shack's rump. At the same time Shack was on his right lead and when AK put the pressure on him and got alongside of Shack in deep stretch.....Shack switched back to his left lead and was under strong handling to prevail. That awkward looking picture (of horse and rider) may have been because Shack switched over to his wrong lead. I hope his switching back to his left lead doesn't spell trouble, as he does have a wide way of going on his right lead. TJ

Dave C · Postby **Dave C** » Mon May 23, 2011 7:53 am

In handicapping the Preakness I always assume the track will be speed biased. Consequently, I picked Shackleford as the horse that would be the most trouble for AK to run down after Shacklefords' gutsy effort in the Derby. On a speed biased track, the appearance of a closer 'spinning his wheels' is the norm.

Here's to hoping that they both run in the Belmont and then hook up a couple more times through the summer.

bdw0617 · Postby **bdw0617** » Mon May 23, 2011 8:53 am

diomed wrote:
bdw0617 wrote:that 3rd place by astrology was the worst thing that could have happened to him. now they think he has talent.

??? The horse has never finished out of the money. Yet, they are skipping the Belmont. He has talent. I don't understand your take on him at all. They seem to be doing the right thing with him. He ran a very good race Saturday.

i just don't think he's a very good horse.

finished 2nd in the race in new mexico, finished 2nd in the jerome, i mean..i just don't think he's very good. he';s picking up the peices in 2nd class races.

In my humble opinion of course.

Whirlaway · Postby **Whirlaway** » Mon May 23, 2011 11:02 am

Whether any of them are any good or not is only relative to the performances that came before them. In this case, this lot appears to be average at best. With the horse we are currently breeding what appears to me to be the key is anticipating when they will reach peak form. In the case of Astrology, he isn't any better or worse than any of the rest of em', just peaked in the Preakness. In my opinion, he looked the best in the post parade - right then I knew I had a live one. And if you watch the replay of the Jerome and what he did in the final furlong in the slop and couple that with his works, easy to see he was going to improve. Whether he was going to improve enough to win was worth a bet at 15/1.

His form, works and odds epitomized what this game is all about: catchin' em' at the peak of their form - the fun part is how good is your judgment of anticipation. Unfortunately he missed by a length or so, but I believe that pattern should pay off in the long run, particularly at those odds.

Hard to know which horse will peak in the Belmont, but I think the winner of the Preakness is on the down cycle in his form.

bdw0617 · Postby **bdw0617** » Tue May 24, 2011 6:12 pm

you bring up an excellent point.

to be frank, I think shackleford ran a race, that he just was not capable of running 2 months ago. he just wasn't that good. we say all the time man these 3 yo's can change overnight. he did. he is not the same horse as he was in April.

but i think the bigger question is WHY is he so much better. if you really look hard at it, no horse in that field had a tougher time getting to the Preakness than shackleford. He not only ran most often, he ran in an allowance, then the grade 2 fountain of youth, then the Florida derby, then the Kentucky derby all in about a 3 month span. And not only that, he wasn't running 1/8th of a race, he was RUNNING the entire race.

I think he was raced into the horse he is now is what i am getting at. God forbid Romans didn't treat him like a glass horse and he turned into a race horse.

zinn21 · Postby **zinn21** » Wed May 25, 2011 6:11 am

BD wrote:

to be frank, I think shackleford ran a race, that he just was not capable of running 2 months ago. he just wasn't that good. we say all the time man these 3 yo's can change overnight. he did. he is not the same horse as he was in April.

but i think the bigger question is WHY is he so much better. if you really look hard at it, no horse in that field had a tougher time getting to the Preakness than shackleford. He not only ran most often, he ran in an allowance, then the grade 2 fountain of youth, then the Florida derby, then the Kentucky derby all in about a 3 month span. And not only that, he wasn't running 1/8th of a race, he was RUNNING the entire race.

I think he was raced into the horse he is now is what i am getting at. God forbid Romans didn't treat him like a glass horse and he turned into a race horse.
_________________

There's a lot of truth to the above. Serious food for thought. But here we have the Derby winner with the fewest starts in the history of a Derby winner and the Preakness winner, hardened and battle tested.