Curlin

John Slotmon · Post by **John Slotmon** » 17 years ago

Borrego won the Pacific Classic and the Jockey Club Gold Cup as a 4YO, and Rock Hard Ten won just about every race he ran as a 4YO, including taking down St. Liam early in 2005. That's not even to mention his scores as a 3YO. That 2001 foal class was a pretty darn good class. Birdstone, Limehouse, Smarty Jones, Rock Hard Ten, Borrego, Lion Heart, Eddington, Purge, even Castledale and Pollard's Vision. How many GI winners in that group alone?

Josh Dutzy · Post by **Josh Dutzy** » 17 years ago

Post by **The Steward** » 17 years ago

So it's okay to say the group of 2004 were a strong group years after they've retired, based on a lot of their 4yo wins, but we can't wait until the group of 2007 turns 4 before we pass judgement?

And there are a lot of grade 1 winners - every year - because there are a lot of grade 1 races every year. The 3yos of 2002 supposedly were weak, but someone had to win the grade 1's....

Josh Dutzy · Post by **Josh Dutzy** » 17 years ago

There are too many Grade 1 races.....

Jolene Danner · Post by **Jolene Danner** » 17 years ago

J Slotman wrote: Borrego won the Pacific Classic and the Jockey Club Gold Cup as a 4YO, and Rock Hard Ten won just about every race he ran as a 4YO, including taking down St. Liam early in 2005. That's not even to mention his scores as a 3YO. That 2001 foal class was a pretty darn good class. Birdstone, Limehouse, Smarty Jones, Rock Hard Ten, Borrego, Lion Heart, Eddington, Purge, even Castledale and Pollard's Vision. How many GI winners in that group alone?

You contradict yourself. You can't judge the 3yo crop until after they are 4yo's according to your statement, but then you go and say that they are weak...

Birdstone won G1's at 2 and 3, SJ and 3, Limehouse won a G2 at 4, RHT won G1's at the end of his 3yo year and at 4, Borrego at 4, LH at 2 and 3, Eddington at 4, Purge at 4, Castledale at 3 and 4, PV (did he win a G1? I don't remember) he kinda just dissapeared after 3. Or I just don't recall his 4yo campaigne.

Anyway your list spans 3 years of racing to make the crop strong. The one you are complaining about being weak has only had the chace to race for 1.5 years. You are only half way there. Cna't compare crops like that.

John Slotmon · Post by **John Slotmon** » 17 years ago

All fair points. However, this group of 3YO's have some of the slowest Beyers in years. Going into the Derby, the highest as a 3YO was a 103. 103!! That is absolutely slow when compared with every other crop of recent years at this point in the year. Whether or not you are a believer in Beyer figures, it is pretty damning that the 2004 foals have run such slow races as 3YO's.

I don't begrudge a one of you your opinion, but at the end of the day, I still firmly believe this crop of 3YO's is slow.

Sean Feld · Post by **Sean Feld** » 17 years ago

Don't bet me started on beyers. They are WORTHLESS

Jolene Danner · Post by **Jolene Danner** » 17 years ago

Sean Feld wrote: Don't bet me started on beyers. They are WORTHLESS

Well i don't think that they are worthless, but anytime that you can take the numbers and move them whereever you feel they need to be it makes it less dependable of a system. I don't always use BEyers when 'capping, but i don't throw themout totally either.

However now you've changed your arguement adding Beyers as your reason for calling this a weak crop. I can't name you the early Beyers of your horses listed, but i'd be willing to be that Limehouse didn't run much (I'm a HUGE Limehouse fan) because he wasn't a super stellar horse. Borrego probably didn't run a significant number until he was 4. I mean he ran 2nd in the Super Derby running it in ~1:51 3/5... Not super fast and that's later in the 3yo year... Oh and Lion Heart did win the Long Beach BC Stakes, defeating the highly rated My Snookies Boy by a head...

The point is that you can't judge a crop by one thing. And you cna't judge a crop when they've only run a small portion of thier career. IT's silly and it's really not giving the horses a cance to prove themselves.

John Slotmon · Post by **John Slotmon** » 17 years ago

Not to demean anyone, but using raw times to compare horses three years apart is useless. Tracks change every day, let alone every month or year.

Jolene Danner · Post by **Jolene Danner** » 17 years ago

J Slotman wrote: Not to demean anyone, but using raw times to compare horses three years apart is useless. Tracks change every day, let alone every month or year.

Then track records are useless as well. Secretariat's 1:59 1/5 is all because of the track..

John Slotmon · Post by **John Slotmon** » 17 years ago

JoleneD wrote:
J Slotman wrote: Not to demean anyone, but using raw times to compare horses three years apart is useless. Tracks change every day, let alone every month or year.
Then track records are useless as well. Secretariat's 1:59 1/5 is all because of the track..

I think that's a little extreme. Monarchos' 1:59 and change was because of the track; Secretariat's 1:59 was because he was that good. WHy do you think they invented BSF's in the first place?

Josh Dutzy · Post by **Josh Dutzy** » 17 years ago

A Beyer Speed Figure is about as useless as a square basketball.....

John Slotmon · Post by **John Slotmon** » 17 years ago

Josh Dutzy wrote: A Beyer Speed Figure is about as useless as a square basketball.....

To each their own. Are BSF's perfect? By no means. The man changed the art of handicapping, however. I certainly wouldn't say they are worthless though.