Midnight Lucky--shades of Rachel A???

[P-Dub]

Rich Curtis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> \"Wow, another Mike Smith reference. You really
> know how to get under my skin. Ouch.\"
>
>  It\'s way, way too late in the game for you to try
> this approach, PDub. What you need to do is start
> ignoring the Mike Smith references, and then
> outlive people.

I have no idea what approach you\'re referring to. You make a lame Mike Smith reference, tell me to ignore them, then outlive people?  I have no idea what you\'re trying to accomplish with this nonsense.


> \"They are one of many pre race stories. They don\'t
> bring in casual fans. You\'re telling me ratings
> spiked because Three Rings ran in the Derby??\"
>
> Three what? Really, PDub, who do you think is
> likely to attract more interest in the Derby, a
> filly or the type of colt the filly would be
> keeping out?

You act as if having a filly will be some monumental story. It won\'t...UNLESS its a filly that has shown some type of ability to compete with the boys.  Winning Colors aired in the SA Derby. Now thats a horse that creates interest. Three \"What\" Rings
beat up on fillies at her home track (GP), then ran DFL in the Derby.  One of many fillies that were virtual no shows in the Derby.

As to your question, what type of colt would be potentially be left out??  What if Mine That Bird had been excluded?   He ran 2nd in the Borderland Derby, 4th in the Sunland Derby.  Having enough earnings to qualify, this thoroughly uninteresting horse registers a 50/1 upset, one of the more memorable upsets in racing history.

What about Giacomo, ridden by our buddy Mike Smith?? 3rd in the Sham, 2nd in the San Felipe, 4th in the SA Derby.  What if we excluded this bum for some interesting filly??  Another uninteresting 50/1 winner, but hey, I guess you would rather watch some filly clunk up for 10th.

People won\'t find a filly any more interesting than they would finding out that Giacomo was named after Sting\'s son, if you\'re referring to casual fans. If you\'re referring to racing fans, if a filly isn\'t accomplished enough, it may have mild interest.  Nothing more.

You never know what will happen in a horse race, lets put a filly in the Derby because its interesting.  I don\'t know about you Rich, but I found Mine That Bird and Giacomo winning the Derby to be much more interesting than watching Three Rings run DFL, or any of the other fillies that have been non competitive.

[richiebee]

Gotta go a little I Dub here and make this a little personal.

Ive been going to/playing races for 40 years, about 12 of those years going basically daily.

Fillies running against colts has produced two unforgettable moments, probably
not for the right reasons

1980, Genuine Risk, Kentucky Derby. Knew I was watching history, a filly
hadn\'t won in 65 years. Not one of the all time great fillies, but got good at
the right time. With the help of info from the Racing Hall of Fame, I can
report that GR was undefeated in 6 starts going into the Wood. She ran third
in the Wood, beaten less than two lengths. Jacinto Vasquez, who might not have
had a Derby mount that year, had been trying to convince Leroy Jolley and the
Firestones that GR deserved a Derby chance.

The story goes that GR ran off with Vasquez her first morning training after
the Wood, which is fun if you believe JV let her run off a bit and went back
and told Jolley he couldn\'t hold her (irony here? because if there is one
thing we all knew JV could do...). The Wood at the time was 2 weeks before the
Derby. Vasquez and the Firestones prevailed, and GR won the Derby and backed
it up with a second in the infamous Codex Preakness, second again in the
Belmont.

2009, Zenyatta, BC Classic. Was alive with Gio Ponti, double, P3, P4 etc. Ouch.
Oh the bitch. Not a fun moment in the dark November recesses of Living Room
Downs. Certainly historical for some, a real bad memory for me.

Enough about me. Not enough factual information being traded in this
testosterone fueled do fillies belong in the Derby debate.

1) Females compete against males at the highest levels regularly around the
World. Females have had success in the BC against males (Sprint, Turf Mile,
Synthetic Classics).

2) If a filly is dominating races against her own gender, she certainly
deserves a Derby chance versus colts. A dominant filly would not have any
chance under the current point system. I probably do not agree with this but
have no solution.

3) If a filly has already had success against colts (Winning Colors), she
deserves a Derby chance. Midnight Lucky in the SA Derby?

4) Since this is the TG board important to repeat these words \"Five pounds at
ten furlongs\"

[moosepalm]

P-Dub Wrote:

> You never know what will happen in a horse race,
> lets put a filly in the Derby because its
> interesting. I found Mine That Bird and Giacomo winning the Derby
> to be much more interesting than watching Three
> Rings run DFL, or any of the other fillies that
> have been non competitive.

Not Curtis, but I\'m guessing he\'s trying to get up on the right side of the bed, per JB\'s suggestion, and in the interests of space, I chose not to quote the entire post.

The best numbers I could find, and I\'ll defer to anyone who has more complete data, is that there have been 38 fillies entered in the Derby and 3 winners.  Besides being a better percentage than Pletcher\'s, it\'s probably also a better percentage than horses of the Mine that Bird and Giacomo ilk, since there are roughly 2-3 per year, at least in the 20 horse field era, above that 50-1 threshold.  I think it\'s safe to say there are many more 50-1 shots who moved quickly into obscurity than the 35 fillies who failed to win the Derby.  Personally, I have no investment in the composition of the Derby field, nor its methodology of selection.  I\'m only interested in my own faulty methodology of selection, but I\'m bothered by conclusions reached without solid statistical underpinnings.

[richiebee]

Moose:

The nerve of some people...inserting statistics into a conversation like this.

I will be curious to see if this new qualifying system brings together 20
runners who are, well, qualified. I would not be surprised to see, what,
between 6 and 8 of the entrants who do not match up well with the top
contenders.

Maybe I\'m wrong. Maybe Covel can chime in and report that he projects that the
entire field will have run TG tops within 3 points of the number he expects to
win the race.

We can dispense with any talk about patterns, because in my humble and
Thoroheretic opinion, this word does not apply to 3YOs making their fourth or
fifth lifetime start.

[magicnight]

I don\'t know if this has been mentioned anywhere in these discussions, but why not keep one or two gates open to \"at large\" selections, such as in the Ryder Cup?

This way, a filly could stay in her division up until her Oaks/Derby prep and still have a shot at the Derby starting gate. Similarly, a standout Euro-based horse with some dirt breeding (Dr Devious) could also have a shot.

You could have a committee and the entire decision process could help pump up interest in the Derby. The choice would be made from those who are at 19-25 in the points race, plus other contenders deemed \"worthy\".

[richiebee]

I would just make Derby points available in 3 or 4 races restricted to fillies:
BC Juvenile Fillies (do they still run this race?), Fair Grounds(owned by CD)
Oaks, plus one each a big 3YO filly race in Fla and Cal.

Would have to rig the points so that filly would have to win two and maybe
three of these races to make the Derby. Also could say that the leading
performer (points) in this 4 race series would be offered a Derby berth.

Hows that for a sub-plot?

[miff]

\"We can dispense with any talk about patterns, because in my humble and
Thoroheretic opinion, this word does not apply to 3YOs making their fourth or fifth lifetime start\"

Bee,

Blasphemous,you are not drinking your Kool Aid. A definite pattern on the winner will emerge,most likely much clearer after the race.If the slowest, most unlikely horse wins, someone will post how they predicted the win from the countless possible interpretations.

Good pal Raggie Richie can show you why just about every winner was possible,off the sheets,after the race because no matter what data you use, you can back into the winner off one fig, running line, pattern, stat, etc.



Mike

[TGJB]

You\'re right, all patterns are the same, there\'s no such thing as a pattern. That\'s why all those Thoro-Patterns (crude as they are) yield the same percentages.

[Rich Curtis]

PDub wrote:

\" have no idea what approach you\'re referring to. You make a lame Mike Smith reference, tell me to ignore them, then outlive people? I have no idea what you\'re trying to accomplish with this nonsense.\"

If you sincerely wish to see a reduction in the number of attacks on Mike Smith, then the best thing you can do is to start ignoring the attacks on Mike Smith. The reason for this is that at this point, you are walking around with a giant \"Push the button and watch PDub blow up\" sign on your back. On the other hand, if you do not mind seeing more attacks on Mike Smith as long as you get to position yourself as his defender, then you should keep doing what you\'ve been doing all these years.

\"You act as if having a filly will be some monumental story.\"

I do?

\"Three \"What\" Rings\"

 I wrote \"what?\" because you got--and keep getting--her name wrong.


\"As to your question, what type of colt would be potentially be left out??\"

That wasn\'t my question. That question is unproductive because all it does is beget the retort, \"What kind of filly would potentially be left out?\" Then you start cherrypicking longshot colts and I start cherrypicking great fillies. It\'s worthless.

\"What about Giacomo, ridden by our buddy Mike Smith?? 3rd in the Sham, 2nd in the San Felipe, 4th in the SA Derby. What if we excluded this bum for some interesting filly?? Another uninteresting 50/1 winner, but hey, I guess you would rather watch some filly clunk up for 10th.\"

You are acting as if a filly bumping a colt who would have won the race leaves the race without a winner and the throne vacant. The race will still have a winner, PDub, and he/she will get the attention that winners get, and nobody will ever know that Giacomo would have won the race if only he had been allowed to back his way into it.

\"People won\'t find a filly any more interesting than they would finding out that Giacomo was named after Sting\'s son, if you\'re referring to casual fans.\"

I don\'t believe this and I don\'t think you do either. In fact, I don\'t think that anybody in the entire world believes this--including Sting. The Battle of the Sexes angle is an easy hook. Probably the easiest of them all.

[miff]

JB,

Read more carefully.Did not see there are no patterns, said you can back into just about winner, after the race. Read your own board,quite a few over time.

Won\'t comment on TGI.

[P-Dub]

If you sincerely wish to see a reduction in the number of attacks on Mike Smith, then the best thing you can do is to start ignoring the attacks on Mike Smith. The reason for this is that at this point, you are walking around with a giant \"Push the button and watch PDub blow up\" sign on your back. On the other hand, if you do not mind seeing more attacks on Mike Smith as long as you get to position yourself as his defender, then you should keep doing what you\'ve been doing all these years.

- I don\'t respond to every \"Mike Smith attack\". When the \"lets bash Mike Smith era\" started, yeah I defended him often. I have since let it go, and have let the rest of you have your fun with it without any comment. Haven\'t \"blown up\" in a long time.

\"Three \"What\" Rings\"

I wrote \"what?\" because you got--and keep getting--her name wrong.

- Three Rings, Three Ring. Really??

As to your question, \"what type of colt would potentially be left out??\"

That wasn\'t my question.

-Your quote: \"Really, PDub, who do you think is likely to attract more interest in the Derby, a filly or the type of colt the filly would be keeping out?\"

I showed you a couple examples.

You are acting as if a filly bumping a colt who would have won the race leaves the race without a winner and the throne vacant.

- No, I\'m not. I\'m saying adding a filly, because she\'s a filly and draws a debatable amount of interest, isn\'t reason enough. And if we did this, we may have missed 2 of the greatest upsets in Derby history. That also creates interest, one reason being it will be talked about for many years. People also love improbable long shots.

The Battle of the Sexes angle is an easy hook. Probably the easiest of them all.

- Yes it is, as long as the female has a shot. Rich, I\'m not anti filly in the Derby, I\'m saying she should have to earn her way in. I say they should show they can compete against the boys in a prep, or do as Richie suggests and designate a race or races. I\'m aware of fillies running against boys often around the world, and as you also do enjoy watching them compete.

[Rich Curtis]

PDub wrote:

\"Three Rings, Three Ring. Really??\"

 Yes, really, unless the New York Times is wrong, in which case, believe me, I\'m going to have a lot more fun with somebody else on this board than I would ever dare to have with you. And by the way: The circus implication of the name fits this string rather well.

\"When the \'lets bash Mike Smith era\' started, yeah I defended him often. I have since let it go, and have let the rest of you have your fun with it without any comment.\"

  You commented yesterday, PDub. And unless my ability to identify writing styles lapsed during my hiatus, you still comment on it on the Rags board--albeit under a different name.

\" I\'m saying adding a filly, because she\'s a filly and draws a debatable amount of interest, isn\'t reason enough. And if we did this, we may have missed 2 of the greatest upsets in Derby history.\"

  This goes to a problem that I have with your logic, PDub. If you are going to make the case, as you have been doing, that one never knows what will happen in a horse race, \"bums\" win, there are incredible upsets, etc., then, unless I woke up on the generous side of the bed, I am going to be inclined to point out that this exact same argument undermines your reasoning about people not being interested in \"watching some filly clunk up for 10th.\"

[TGJB]

P Dub, you get a brief reply and then that\'s it for this wildly interesting discussion.

[P-Dub]

TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> P Dub, you get a brief reply and then that\'s it
> for this wildly interesting discussion.

Okie Dokie. I\'ll do my best......

I won\'t address the ridiculous Three Ring(s) name fiasco that has riled Rich far more than any Mike Smith reference. If I said Rock Hard (wrong last word), then I can see your point.  Ring, Rings??

You commented yesterday, PDub. And unless my ability to identify writing styles lapsed during my hiatus, you still comment on it on the Rags board--albeit under a different name

I made a brief comment here, nothing close to a rant or anything else. You are really reaching here pal.

P-Dub is trademarked and can only be used on the TG board. I use Biz \"over there\", a nickname for one of my 3 dogs. I rarely post, and haven\'t since the Derby of last year.

If you are referring to the thread regarding last year\'s Derby ride, the one where I destroyed Cube to the point he was speechless....that wasn\'t defending Mike Smith specifically. I would have made that post regardless of whomever rode that horse. Coincidentally, it was Smith.

This goes to a problem that I have with your logic, PDub. If you are going to make the case, as you have been doing, that one never knows what will happen in a horse race, \"bums\" win, there are incredible upsets, etc., then, unless I woke up on the generous side of the bed, I am going to be inclined to point out that this exact same argument undermines your reasoning about people not being interested in \"watching some filly clunk up for 10th.\"

Last time.  Those examples were of horses that EARNED their way in. They followed the rules, had enough earnings, and per the rules belonged in the starting gate. If a Filly EARNS it fine. Thats it.

You want to exclude a horse that has earned their way in, because a filly is more \"interesting\", and I pointed out 2 historic (mutuel wise) runnings of the race that would have never happened.

You asked what type of horse would be excluded if we allow a filly to run? You said you never said that, until I reproduced the exact quote which said otherwise. My response was the 2 longshot winners. This doesn\'t undermine anything, and your inability to comprehend my points is what has allowed this thread to veer out of control.

Not really brief JB, but thats the best I can do.

[Eight Belles]

P-Dub Wrote:
 
>
> The Battle of the Sexes angle is an easy hook.
> Probably the easiest of them all.
>
> - Yes it is, as long as the female has a shot.
> Rich, I\'m not anti filly in the Derby, I\'m saying
> she should have to earn her way in. I say they
> should show they can compete against the boys in a
> prep, or do as Richie suggests and designate a
> race or races. I\'m aware of fillies running
> against boys often around the world, and as you
> also do enjoy watching them compete.

Off the top of my head, fillies\' win and ITM placements stats are significantly higher than that of colts.  Which indicates that they are managed better than the average, yet you are asking them to manage them differently than they\'d possibly do.  Who exactly does that benefit?  Certainly not the horse.