OK PDub, you win. Since you seem to be obsessed with my opinions and can do nothing but troll them, I will incredibly bore the rest of the board with a detailed post showing you how laughable what you posted before was.

[b]PDub said:
Didn't you tell me that CC ran on the "new dirt"?? You even made a smart ass comment about storing all of the old dirt in dump trucks. Here is your quote..


"PDub, not sure if you are suggesting that Santa Anita put the dirt from the old track into dump trucks for 3 years and then simply replaced it when the time came, and I really hope you aren't trying to dumb down the discussion to say "dirt is dirt", because either of those are obviously ridiculous.

From everything I read, SA went to great lengths to come up with a new "state-of-the-art" dirt surface for the replacement. I'm in no position to judge the significance of the difference between old and new, but it factually is different, which to me means that using horses that ran over the old surface (let alone horses that ran nearly 2 decades ago) is pretty much irrelevant to the discussion I'm trying to have."

You mean a horse like Giacomo???[/b]

So let's start at the beginning here. Right off the bat, you are trying to dumb down this discussion to blend 2 entirely different premises I've been discussing on the board. One very specific and one much more general.

1) Front-running horses that have had success over the new SA surface since it went back to dirt seem unable to get back to their tops back east more often than I would expect. I clearly stated there are 2 buckets of horses, those that can do it and those that can't.

I NEVER, EVER stated or even implied that EVERY front-running horse at SA, past or present, cannot duplicate tops at CD or back east, yet you consistently post after post, project this opinion back upon me as though I said it, including in this latest trash heap you have blessed us with.

2) A much more general topic, that closing style horses from many different tracks going back the last decade are generally ones that run large new tops in the Derby. Has absolutely nothing to do with the first point, it's discussion two entirely different types of horses in a less specific scenario not focused on a single track, but you'd like us to dumb down the discussion so we are talking about both of them at once.

PDub said:
[b]You stated that CC ran on an extremely glib surface (new dirt) and that the horses I mentioned, including Giacomo, ran on the "old dirt". Thus, they didn't matter when talking about Cal horses that ran exclusively in California and ran well in Kentucky. Your words not mine. Actually, your word was irrelevant. I mentioned Silver Charm, a Derby winner that ran in the first flight. Nah, doesn't matter. That was over the "old dirt".

Now you mention how Giacomo raced on a speed favoring track some 10+ years ago, was "unleashed" with great success at CD, after you went to great lengths to tell us how the dirt is different at SA today than it was 5 years ago and later.[/b]

Yep, and thanks for posting my words above so we can see how ridiculous you are being. Here you state I went to great lengths to state the surfaces were very different, yet my exact words clearly state I'm in no position to judge the difference between the two, which is pretty much the exact opposite of what you accused me of saying.

PDub said:
[b]And I'm the one that is "mentally challenged" and "dumb down the discussion".[/b]

Shoe is certainly fitting so far, shall we continue?

PDub said:
[b]If you're going to include Giacomo as a horse that ran over a "speed favoring" track, then include the other horses that ran over the same surface that had success. Many that weren't closers, that in fact (I know how you love that word - fact and factually) ran on or near the lead.

Winning Colors, Silver Charm, and others ran close to the pace and replicated that form in Kentucky. They ran over "speed favoring tracks. Its apparent the only horses relevant to your discussions are those that validate your opinion, as opposed to those that don't.[/b]

The use of Giacamo in the discussion of point #2 is definitely testing the boundaries of relevant data, I'll openly admit. But the Derby is only run once a year and move-up closers have success so infrequently, it's hard to show examples without going that far back.

By the way, Giacamo won the Derby 9 years ago. Silver Charm won 17 years ago and Winning Colors 26 years ago. I find the introduction of them into this discussion to be laughably irrelevant, and will always continue to do so anytime someone tries to bring up an example of something that happened that long ago as a talking point, no matter what the discussion topic. If that's the example you have to use to make your point, chances are you are standing on pretty shaky ground.

But the biggest clownshoes moment of them all occurs at the end of that statement where you once again project upon me that I have said all horses that win over speed favoring surfaces can't win at CD, which I absolutely never said in any shape or form. I hope you are enjoying arguing with the voices in your head, because you aren't having an argument with any opinion I've ever made, just the ones you seem to think I've made after twisting the meaning into something else.

PDub said:
[b]You have no idea whether or not CC will handle the surface, any more than you can predict that any other horse will either.[/b]

Hooray! You got one right! This is, in fact, exactly what I've stated in my previous posts about this theory.

PDub said:
[b]You're guessing, and trying to convince yourself otherwise by tailoring facts that fit your opinion.[/b]

Yep, my previous posts also openly admitted I'm guessing, never anywhere did I convince myself of anything different and all the data I've used is factual.

PDub said:
[b]You're the type of person that back fits data, then thinks he's come up with a profitable handicapping system.[/b]

Well, you've been right about little else so far, so I guess you might as well shoot for the moon as you did here. I'm not going to dignify this with any response other than to say, I'm the type of person that enjoys discussing handicapping opinions and theories (the ones that people actually stated, not the ones that the voices in your head made up) and that's why I'm here.