Haskel

[P-Dub]

TreadHead Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sorry PDub, but your post on red-boarding jockeys
> vs trainers takes the cake when it comes to spent
> credibility.  Not interested in debating someone
> with opinions so ridiculous, my last post on the
> matter.
>
> No, we don\'t have great 3yr olds every year, but
> if you can\'t appreciate the performance we saw
> today then you are blinded by hate for some other
> reason.


Another comment having nothing to do with the discussion. Nice job.

I don\'t know if you lack comprehension, or what.  But appreciating his performance and calling him great are 2 completely different things.  I\'ve said this over and over, at some point hopefully you can get that simple distinction.

Sorry if you think calling a horse great because he won a couple of restricted GR1 is ridiculous. At the rate you call horses great, the HOF will encompass the entire town of Saratoga in order to fit them all in.

[P-Dub]

TreadHead Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i\'m not the one who went back 30 years to define
> what \"great\" means, that was PDub.  As for
> analyzing the raw times compared from 2 different
> tracks, I\'ll be polite and reserve the words I
> would say for how useless that is.  If he doesn\'t
> earn a negative number for this win, I\'ll eat my
> hat.
>
> EDIT - the race was 5 sec slower than PantsOnFire
> and 4 sec slower than Joyful Victory, which were 1
> 1/16th races.  If you can\'t see that it was by far
> the most impressive route on the card, not sure
> what else to say.

JB will suspend me if I say what\'s on my mind right now, so I\'ll be as polite as possible.

I named a horse that is truly great. He ran in 1989, 24 years ago.  So not only do you make ridiculous arguments on what makes a great horse, you can\'t add.

And you say my credibility is suspect. Brilliant!!

[catcapper]

It was a supremely dominating win. Not much more than a hand ride.
The horse is on his game. Can\'t imagine he won\'t come out of this race ok, and if so there is no reason not to run in the Travers.  A mile and a quarter is tough. I was of the school of thought that he was probably stretching it at 1 1/8 - but baby\'s got bottom alright. I guess he gets it from his dam, no doubt. Wherever, whatever, to say he dominated borders on understatement considering other times on the day, and I can\'t believe they tightened the track just for that race.

Really looking forward to the Travers now. Let\'s hope the track is fast and fair, not sloppy.  May not be much of a betting race though. This horse will probably go off at less than even money.

[catcapper]

Times are affected by many factors, including track surface. It has been pointed out several times already about how the track was playing at Monmouth today. Maybe it was the low air pressure being so close to the ocean. But seriously, you can\'t compare times the way you just did and successfully draw any meaningful conclusions.  And please, don\'t bring up Secretariat as a point in fact. It won\'t fly.

[catcapper]

I will add, it is interesting that the times were so slow at Monmouth today as Monmouth usually plays fast. At least I think it does. I don\'t really follow Monmouth, but when I see the times for horses running in New York who have been running at Monmouth, I know that those times are so fast because of the track surface, not so much the horse. Otherwise, I would lose a whole basket full of money betting those times in New York.

[Tavasco]

I believe Monmouth times appear fast because of the long run up to the initial photocell. That is, in sprints, the horses are nearly at speed when the timer starts. 1st fraction times are consistently quick.

I\'m not certain about the various route distances, probably similar.

[TGJB]

Tread-- I\'ve kinda stayed out of this one, but since it gives me a chance to show Pdub I\'m really not biased against him, I\'m going to stick my toe in.

As I\'ve discussed here a lot (it came up about Zenyatta) ability and accomplishment are two different things. But no matter which yardstick you use here, Verazzano does not qualify as a great horse, and will not unless he does a LOT more.

I haven\'t done the day yet but I suspect Beyer got it about right, he ran about a neg 4 in the Haskell. And he now has won two GI\'s.

But if you want to see great 3yos, you don\'t have to go back 30 years. Take a look at the sheets or pp\'s for Smarty or Rachel, and not far behind are Point Given and Bernardini.

If Verrazano runs that fast again in his next three starts, and/or wins the Travers, Gold Cup and Classic, we can start talking about whether he\'s a great horse. Right now he\'s a horse that has run great once or twice.

[TreadHead]

Look, I get that not everyone is ready to call him a \"great horse\" yet, but I think hopefully now everyone would agree that he has \"great ability\".  I think he\'s the most talented and exciting 3yr old we\'ve seen going back to Rachel or Big Brown, and given how his ability compares to those of the past couple years, I don\'t see why anyone would take issue with using superlatives to describe him.

If people want to reserve the right to define a \"great horse\" as someone who can repeat great performances many times on big stages, then it is fine to say you want to see it repeated more.  But if there were ever to be a \"great\" horse in this day and age, its got to start with a record and sheet that looks something like this.

Even Rachel wasn\'t able to be \"great\" for more than a few months.  Using measuring sticks for \"great\" that involve comparisons to horses 20+ years ago is simply beyond absurd.  No one races their horses this often or as strenuously any more and the breeding has changed dramatically.  If you want to use that as an excuse to say there aren\'t ever really going to be any more \"great\" horses because they don\'t run long campaigns, that is fine, I hope you enjoy how boring it is going to be as fan of racing for the next 20 years.

You guys are weighing durability heavily in your definition of \"great\", I\'m being more realistic about the world we live in today.  I get no satisfaction out of enjoying horses that ran 20+ years ago, I want to enjoy the horses that are running now.  I\'m not going to view the world thru some curmudgeon\'s glasses based on ideals formed 20-40 years ago or look for other biased reasons to hate like just because he\'s trained by Pletcher.

I\'m using a modern definition and enjoying the greatness I\'ve seen on display from him so far this year.  Yes, he was off his game when humans thought it mattered most at the Derby, and is likely to falter in his next outing as well if he really did get a -4 here.  But I\'ve enjoyed his other performances to date and it makes the hair on my neck stand up when he puts 10 lengths between himself and the field like he did yesterday.  Or at Tampa.  Or at Gulfstream.

[miff]

Think JB pretty much nailed it. Verranzano has to accomplish much more against top level competition to be considered great by the standards set before him.The Haskell field he demolished was a bit light.

Agree Verranzano put up 2 huge performances,a tough read going forward as he has not shown the resiliency to repeat big performances,yet! Verranzano is the fastest 3 yr old right now,strictly speaking speed/performance figs.

If he runs off in the Travers(assuming he goes)he\'ll be closer to great.

[TGJB]

We\'re going to try to post the sheets on these later.

All the ones I mentioned ran in the last 11 years, not 20-30 yars ago. Rachel ran 8 times at three, was undefeated, beating colts in 3 GI\'s (she won five overall), running two neg 4\'s (and I probably robbed her of another in the Mother Goose). Keep in mind fillies are 3 points slower than colts on average.

Point Given was 6 for 7 at three, winning five GI\'s, and accomplished a lot more than V at two. His figures don\'t quite stack up, but just like horses used to run more often, as a group they were slower, too.

Bernardini ran five straight between neg 2 and neg 3 3/4, won 3 GI\'s and ran second in the BC Classic.

Smarty was 9 for 10 lifetime, including 2/3 of the TC, with four straight efforts between neg 1 3/4 and 3 3/4. His last six starts came in just over three months.

[miff]

\"palace malice, a horse i don\'t even like, ran a mile and an 8th in 1:47.37 yesterday--he\'s tied with 2 other horses for the 2nd fastest jim dandies. the fastest was louis quatorze in 1996, who ran it in 1:47 1/5. the last time verrazano hooked up with palace malice in a speed duel, he finished behind palace malice who set the fractions\"

Kekomi,

Palace Malice did not run as fast as Verranzano
did in the Haskell.Unadjusted raw time not a barometer for comparing performances.



Mike

[Fairmount1]

To say I\'m intrigued by this string is an understatement.  Now that I have completed the survey, I can critique V\'s races by saying that his best races, the runaway victories, took place in Florida and New Jersey.  In Kentucky, he didn\'t like the track according to his trainer.  And in the Wood, he did not resemble Great.  

I have very little confidence that he wins the Travers just like I had little confidence he would win the Derby.  I highly doubt he runs at Santa Anita for the Breeders Cup but he will be retired to stud by the end of this year with highlights of his Haskell and Gulfstream victories in the commercials to tell us he was truly \"great!\"

Another Pletcher produced sire that will make Tabor more money at stud than on the track.

[TreadHead]

I get your point, but the only thing we are really discussing there is volume of great performances and that volume defines a \"great horse\".  Another way to look at this would be, how many horses have ever run a negative 4 at 3yrs old?  In that light, I think it is fair to paint it as a \"great accomplishment\" or \"demonstration of great ability\" even if he never wins another race, given how few others have done it.  Again, just mincing words at this point.

I\'m not optimistic about his Travers chances at all, given his somewhat brittle history both personally and with siblings, I think it is safe to expect a bounce here.  Assuming it is temporary and he can get back to this level again, however, I think Santa Anita sets up very well for him as a hard dirt, speed-favoring track, like the ones he\'s run his superlative races over already.

[Fairmount1]

\"Another way to look at this would be, how many horses have ever run a negative 4 at 3yrs old?\"

Dreaming of Julia did.  Is she great?

[Tavasco]

I also find the debate intriguing.

One side contends that a horse needs results and accomplishment far above the norm to be legitimately called great.

The other side seems subjectively and fanatically invested in a good looking horse with a nice lyrical Italian name who has beaten a few mediocre fields claiming great is in the eyes of the beholder.

Since the first argument is logical but has no soul and the second argument has more passion than evidence I submit - Skip Away was my favorite Haskel winner in the last 30 years. He ran pretty fast with real competition. Didn\'t think of him as a Haskell winner or a 3 y/o sensation did ya. All you had to do was see him run live to grok great.