Street Sense-- Jim Dandy

[geowarrior]

Not to be tiresome, but I believe one way to define acceleration is rate of change of velocity. In this case we can use velocity synonomously with speed (although they are not the same thing). My point - if Street Sense has acceleration, he certainly has speed.

[Sam]

Bernardini is at $100K because he's an AP Indy, whom has successful sons standing here. Name me a Street Cry son that's able to boost Street Sense's marketability as a stallion? There are none (yet).

That was a stunningly ignorant argument when you tried to make it about Unbridled's Song and it's equally ignorant now.

[Rokeby Forever]

If AP Indy sons were duds, Bernardini would be racing this year.

Why didn't Discreet Cat retire last year? Gee, maybe because there isn't a high priced Forestry out there?

Nice try, Sammie

[Sam]

Not to be tiresome, but I believe one way to define acceleration is rate of change of velocity. In this case we can use velocity synonomously with speed (although they are not the same thing). My point - if Street Sense has acceleration, he certainly has speed.

Exactly... People argue he's devoid of speed because he doesn't go out and rattle off 22 quarters while on the lead. Roke seems to be forgetting he broke his maiden at 6.5f in 1:15.4 and was never worse than 2nd.... Curlin broke his maiden at 7f in 1:22.1... roughly the same "speed" given both finished up the last 8th in about 12 seconds. Clearly, the horse has matured and learned to rate... that doesn't make him a "deep closer."

Stating that he came from 19th to win the Derby doesn't mean a lot to me when we're talking about a 20 horse field. By that logic, you could claim a horse who came from 5th in a 6 horse field to win is a "deep closer" -- except he could have been no more than 5 lengths from the leader at any one time. At the point he was called 19th (the half mile) in the Derby, Street Sense was roughly 20 lengths off the lead -- 4 seconds? Off a :46 split in a 20 horse field going 10f? Not something I would call a 'deep closer'.

He was 8th of 9 in the Preakness -- roughly 9.5 lengths back at the 1/4 (almost 2 seconds off a :22 opening split) and about 15 at the 1/2 (roughly 3 seconds off a :45 half split)... still not a 'deep closer' to me. A :48 half is still respectable when talking about a 9.5f race.

[Rokeby Forever]

SAM wrote: "Stating that he came from 19th to win the Derby doesn't mean a lot to me when we're talking about a 20 horse field. By that logic, you could claim a horse who came from 5th in a 6 horse field to win is a "deep closer""

Passing 18 horses is the same as having to pass only 4? And you use the word "logic" in that sentence? LMAO!!!!!

Coming from 20 lengths of the lead and having to pass 18 out of 19 horses don't make a horse a deep closer. What the heck does...having to pass all 19? Thanks for the laugh, SAM....I needed it!

Silky Sullivan once came from 41 lengths behind to win a 6.5 furlong race. Speed to spare!

A week before the Derby, Giacomo worked 1:11 2/5. What afterburners!

I see your "logic," SAM. I'm also 10 minutes away from wearing a straightjacket.

[Sam]

SAM wrote: "Stating that he came from 19th to win the Derby doesn't mean a lot to me when we're talking about a 20 horse field. By that logic, you could claim a horse who came from 5th in a 6 horse field to win is a "deep closer""
Passing 18 horses is the same as having to pass only 4? And you use the word "logic" in that sentence?

Nice way to completely ignore the point, as I knew you would. PASSING HORSES doesn't automatically equal 'deep closer', IMO. Would you still consider him a deep closer if the 17 horses he passed had been within 10 lengths of the leader? Do you consider Curlin a "deep closer" since he went from 14th to 3rd in the Derby?

As I said, you'd have been better off trying to argue Street Sense was a 'deep closer' if you'd stated that he came from 30+ lengths in every race. He doesn't. ONE RACE where he had to pass 17 horses (ignoring how tightly bunched those horses are or his half mile vs. the leader's half mile), doesn't make him a 'deep closer'. He was never worse than 4th in the Blue Grass or the Tampa Bay Derby. He was never worse than 3rd in the Arlington-Washington Futurity. He was never worst than second when he broke his maiden in a 6.5f sprint in 1:15.4

Life isn't nearly as simplistic as your trolling tries to make it, Roke.

[Rokeby Forever]

SAM wrote: As I said, you'd have been better off trying to argue Street Sense was a 'deep closer' if you'd stated that he came from 30+ lengths in every race.

Can you name a horse in the history of racing that came from 30+ lengths back in every race? If you can't, then you're admitting that there have been NO deep closers in the history of racing. Go ahead...name ONE. If you can't, then that statement was your usual idiocy, SAM.

SAM wrote: He was never worse than 4th in the Blue Grass or the Tampa Bay Derby. He was never worse than 3rd in the Arlington-Washington Futurity.

He was life and death to win at Tampa, and he didn't finish at all in the other races - he hung like a bank robber in a Western movie. Why? Because when SS is closer to the pace than he wants to be, he doesn't have the same kick. He's a deep closer! DUH!!!

His two best races:

1) he passed 12 of 13 horses in the BC Juvie.

2) he passed 18 of 19 in the KY Derby.

Curlin moved from 14 to 3rd in the Derby, but he lost by almost 8 lengths. So, how much ground did he really make up compared to Street Sense going from 19th for first in the same race? Curlin is, therefore, not a deep closer. Stupid question, SAM.

Would I possibly consider Street Sense a deep closer if he passed 17 or 18 horses that were within 10 lengths of each other? How far back from them would he have to be....10 lengths? 20 lengths? 30 lengths? If the horses SS passed in the Derby were within 10 lengths of eachother, he would have been 10 lengths behind the last one (he was 20 lengths back of the leader...remember?). Yeah, that makes him a deep closer. According to you...would he have to be 15 lengths back of them? 20 lengths back? 50 lengths back? What's your rule that you can't possibly uphold by giving an example of?

C'mon, SAM....give one example of your definition of a deep closer - a horse "that came from 30+ lengths in every race," as you define one. Just one, SAM. Prove that you're not just an argumentative little kid that needs attention by writing stupid statements because Mommy and Daddy won't give you any....NAME ONE!!!!!

Watch SAM's reply...she won't give an example. She's incapable. She'll babble about lots of other things, but when it comes to put up or shaddap, she shuts up pretty often.

[turtles11756]

sightseeing is no seeking the gold. hello to all

[Rokeby Forever]

Seeking The Gold was 2nd in the Wood Memorial - so was Sightseeing. Seeking the Gold was 2nd in the Travers - Sightseeing is gonna win it. So, you're right...they're not the same.

[Sam]

Can you name a horse in the history of racing that came from 30+ lengths back in every race? If you can't, then you're admitting that there have been NO deep closers in the history of racing.

You do understand an exaggeration, don't you? You should since you're extremely prone to them.

That was all a very nice, but obvious effort to dodge two very simple questions crafted to highlight the flaws in YOUR definition of a 'deep closer' which had NO conditions about distance or time. YOUR definition relied SOLELY on the number of horses passed. So...

Would you call any horse a deep closer if the 17 horses he passed had all been within 10 lengths of the leader?

Do you consider Curlin a "deep closer" since he went from 14th to 3rd in the Derby?

Yes or no, Roke. Anything else is a dodge.

C'mon, SAM....give one example of your definition of a deep closer - a horse "that came from 30+ lengths in every race," as you define one.

If you'd bother to comprehend what is written instead of picking something out to try and start another fight, you'd have noticed that was NOT "my" definition of a 'deep closer' -- it was my saying YOU could have made a better case for the definition of a deep closer if you paid more attention to other things in the race than just position calls.

YOU'RE the one who stated the definition of a 'deep closer' is one who passes a lot of horses. Period. Nothing about time or lengths back. So, again, do you consider Curlin a 'deep closer' because he passed 11 horses to finish 3rd in the Derby? Do you consider a horse who passes 17 horses with only 10 lengths between them a 'deep closer'?

Don't throw up a bunch of smoke -- just answer the questions with a simple yes or no. If you do ANYTHING other than answer yes or no, you're wasting your time because I refused to be pulled into yet another bullshit pissing match with you. If you want to whore for attention, sucker someone else in to play your games.

[Rokeby Forever]

You're called out, SAM....nothing but ifs, buts, and any other excuse to weasel out of the ONE THING I asked you to prove for you to write - give me an example. I answered ALL your questions (go back and read them, little girl) - you didn't answer mine.

Example of a question I answered that you stupidly wrote that I didn't - is Curlin a deep closer?:

Curlin moved from 14 to 3rd in the Derby, but he lost by almost 8 lengths. So, how much ground did he really make up compared to Street Sense going from 19th for first in the same race? Curlin is, therefore, not a deep closer. Stupid question, SAM.

After I wrote that, you asked:

Do you consider Curlin a "deep closer" since he went from 14th to 3rd in the Derby?

Yes or no, Roke. Anything else is a dodge.

You're a fool. Go play with your dolls.

[Sam]

Curlin moved from 14 to 3rd in the Derby, but he lost by almost 8 lengths. So, how much ground did he really make up compared to Street Sense going from 19th for first in the same race? Curlin is, therefore, not a deep closer. Stupid question, SAM.

YOUR definition of a 'deep closer' relies/d solely on the number of horses passed. You made no mention of lengths behind or ground made up until AFTER I pointed out the flaw in your original statement. Everything I highlighted is a caveat you added after the fact to make you sound like your original definition including something more than the number of horses passed.

So by YOUR original statement, Street Sense is a deep closer because he passed 17 horses (something he will never have to do again) but Curlin is not when he passes 11?

I'd tell you not to bother with a response because the above is rhetorical if I thought it would matter.

[Rokeby Forever]

BUSTED!!!!!! BUSTED!!!!! BUSTED!!!!!!

You wrote: "...AFTER I pointed out the flaw in your original statement"

By writing: "...you'd have been better off trying to argue Street Sense was a 'deep closer' if you'd stated that he came from 30+ lengths in every race."

But then you write, "You do understand an exaggeration, don't you?"

So, you pointed out NOTHING. You admit that you contradict what you think is a flaw with an exaggeration.

I'm having so much fun with this. You're a fool, SAM.

[hpkingjr]

I love an early Valentine's Day, have you two thought about getting a room?

[madelyn]

They are both in Nevada.. don't they have 24 hour wedding chapels there?