Re: Lucky Pulpit vs. Tapit (480 Views)
Posted by:
P-Dub (IP Logged)
Date: April 08, 2014 04:33AM
TreadHead Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
P-Dub listed horses in a different
> response where surface did not matter (most of
> them before the synth was put in at SA, making it
> fairly irrelevant to this discussion, but
> whatever) and that's all well and good, but for
> every horse that is able to duplicate their
> efforts over a very different track type, you can
> probably find one that fails.
>
If Silver Charm and others never left California before the Derby, performed well on a dirt track, then ran well or won the Kentucky Derby, how is that irrelevant?
You're suggesting that the dirt surface pre synthetic is that much different than the post synthetic dirt surface??
Of course you can find a horse that fails over a different surface, as well as find a horse that duplicates their effort. I could find horses from every circuit that ran well at CD and others that ran poorly.
So using your logic, I can find a horse from Gulfstream Park that ran poorly in the Derby and then surmise that other horses will do the same thing. I'll just conveniently ignore the ones that don't support my opinion, just as you choose to ignore the one's from California that dispel yours.
You then say Game On Dude ran well on glib So Cal surfaces, then say he failed at CD. Yeah, getting run down at the wire in the BC Classic and getting beat a step or 2 in the Clark is such a failure. He also won at Charlestown. Getting beat doesn't mean you didn't run well. You can run your race and still get beat.
What you have said is that CC won't duplicate his performance over a different surface, yet you have offered nothing factual to support your claims. This game is about odds. As a favorite, it makes sense to take a chance he won't. If he wasn't the favorite and depending on his odds, it would be wise to think differently.
But whatever.
P-Dub