keeping up w/the joneses (516 Views)
Posted by:
Lucy (IP Logged)
Date: August 16, 2004 02:35AM
I'll save the 80's discussion for that day that I'm hanging out in the old guys' bar on the corner, drinking my old style.
as far as silver charm's crop, I am of the suspicion that this bunch made an impression on you because they produced aome top older horses, or in deputy commander's case, ran well against older (in the cup).
in this respect, you are absolutely right that they have done more as older horses than smarty's peers.
I'm not really sure what it is that smarty's peers should have done up to now to garner a higher score from the french judge.
judging by the #'s --- which is how *I* would evaluate them, smarty's crop looks just as good, if not better than most.
how these fast 3 yo #'s will translate into older handicap horses, I have no idea, but there's always hope that a few will make it.
the fact is, most of smarty's peers haven't won anything so far because smarty kept beating them.
the few that managed to win the races of note that smarty didn't gobble up --- purge, a couple zitos, lion heart, were pretty much all handled by smarty, w/the exception of his belmont loss, in which he ran second.
these are all good horses, judging by the #'s --- they just ran into a horse that ran faster.
I wouldn't know what criteria a horse must meet for hall of fame acceptance, but I think smarty's resume was a little short, regardless of his peers.
I don't think simply winning the derby should merit inclusion --- however, had he won that last one, I probably would have to give him my imaginary vote, despite the short career.