jbelfior wrote:

Perhaps the 2
> month layoff going into the race had something to do with it.

It was Three (3) months off. Something was somewhat amiss with the horse.

> This is another example of why performance ratings need to be
> looked at within the context of how they were achieved.

I agree with the above statement to some extent. But you have to put it in context if I get a "competitive" T-Fig horse outta "tomato can" races and he's 30-1 against "class" horses. Theres a pretty good chance (other considerations factored) I'm going to play that way.

>
> Performance ratings are a powerful tool. You cannot attempt to
> beat this game without them.
>
> However to make a race evaluation based solely on what that #
> is, makes that number "a terrible thing to waste."

Sure, my sentiments exactly, but I'd add they are the single most important tool. TGJB doesn't say "bet the high fig. horse either", he's always analyzing the field. Perusal of the ROTW makes that clear.

In the end you judge these things by how well you handicap them. I have to admit I lost money on the BC Classic, but thats the only race I've bet some of the 2001 crop against olders. I did not bet Purge in the NYRA mile.

In hindsight, I do believe Zito raced Birdstone a little light. You can debate how that affected his injury and B.C. effort, but, the possibility exists he may not have been up to olders. I'm more certain of the fact that the light racing schedule was due to Zito's belief the horse needed time. I don't think that is necessarily true. I think he was severely compromised in his Jim Beam and Kentucky Derby starts. He could have been my Lemon Drop Kid of the decade. I just couldn't put him atop Smarty.


CtC



Post Edited (11-30-04 14:25)