OGTEleven
-
Posts
2,013 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by OGTEleven
-
-
probably my favorite underrated character actor would be Lance Henricksen, but since he doesn't fit the bill, how about Avery Brooks?
I like Henricksen too. i also like a guy named Peter Stormare who I think is very underrated and Peter Sarsgaard who I have seen do some very good work along with having some bad roles.
Neither of those guys fit any of the characters described.
-
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/07/lou-gehrig-speech-75th-anniversary-mlb-new-york-yankees
It's a baseball player with a terrible disease giving a speech, but it exemplifies so many things about America. The will and determination to carry on, the freedom to do what you love and the appreciation of what others have done to allow that freedom to you. The humility to realize that despite whatever obstacle is in front of you, there is still much you have.
Although this was about one loved person, it says a lot about what the American system has afforded us all.
"Fans, for the past two weeks you have been reading about the bad break I got. Yet today I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of this earth. I have been in ballparks for seventeen years and have never received anything but kindness and encouragement from you fans.
"Look at these grand men. Which of you wouldn't consider it the highlight of his career just to associate with them for even one day? Sure, I'm lucky. Who wouldn't consider it an honor to have known Jacob Ruppert? Also, the builder of baseball's greatest empire, Ed Barrow? To have spent six years with that wonderful little fellow, Miller Huggins? Then to have spent the next nine years with that outstanding leader, that smart student of psychology, the best manager in baseball today, Joe McCarthy? Sure, I'm lucky.
"When the New York Giants, a team you would give your right arm to beat, and vice versa, sends you a gift - that's something. When everybody down to the groundskeepers and those boys in white coats remember you with trophies - that's something. When you have a wonderful mother-in-law who takes sides with you in squabbles with her own daughter - that's something. When you have a father and a mother who work all their lives so you can have an education and build your body - it's a blessing. When you have a wife who has been a tower of strength and shown more courage than you dreamed existed - that's the finest I know.
"So I close in saying that I may have had a tough break, but I have an awful lot to live for."
-
He is my all time favorite player. He took the hardest task in sports and made it look so easy. He was always looking for ways to improve, even after establishing himself as an all time great. He was so consistent and confident, and never seemed arrogant.
I feel privileged just to have been able to watch his whole career.
His lifetime average facing Greg Maddux was .415 and Maddux never struck him out.
The Post’s Tom Boswell called Gwynn “one of the sweetest, nicest, smartest players I ever met in baseball,” in his weekly chat today. “He was always grinning, joking and learning. No better student of hitting since Ted Williams. (Some others also [were] great at it, but none better than Gwynn.)”
Boswell recalled pitcher Greg Maddux telling him how difficult it was to assess the speed of a pitch and likened it to the difficulty of telling how fast a car was going. “If the car was alone on the road,” Boswell wrote on his chat, “‘the human eye can’t do it.’ And, Maddux said, ‘No hitter can tell the difference in speed of different pitches, except that &^%$#@! * Tony Gwynn.”
Strasburg flashed potential in high school, but poor physical condition and an uneven temper kept colleges away. Two schools offered him a scholarship. He turned down Yale to play for his idol at his hometown school.
Without Gwynn, there would be no Stephen Strasburg as the baseball world knows him. “A father figure,” Strasburg has called Gwynn. In two seasons at SDSU, Strasburg morphed from an overlooked, undrafted high school player to the most anticipated pitching prospect ever. Strasburg credited Gwynn for molding him into a professional competitor and for protecting his arm. Many college coaches ride their ace pitchers to the detriment of their arms. Gwynn never pushed Strasburg for too many pitches, never endangered his career.
Link is to a cool audio.
-
No not at all unreasonable. Outside of Chrome that field for the Preakness wasn't stacked with a bunch of world beaters, right? Clement is a good trainer could have easily had Tonalist prepared for that race despite not having run since Feb 22. If anything he watchd the Derby closely and figured if Chrome is that good and wins our best shot to beat him would be Belmont so in my opinion he took the opportunist route. Thats horse racing go to the gate enough times someone is going to beat you.
I strongly suspect that Clement mapped out his strategy for getting Tonalist back to the races long before the Kentucky Derby was run. I'm equally convinced he developed this strategy in line with what he thought was best for the horse's health and provided the most likely set of positive outcomes (i.e.. Running well in the Peter Pan and winning the Belmont). It is silly to expect him to adjust his plans after watching the Kentucky Derby so he could be perceived to be more fair in the eyes of some crazy owner of a different horse.
I think you get my point. All these performance enhancing drugs and uses of them have gotten more sufisticated and with the amount of money thats on the line more and more are willing to push the envelope to gain that edge.I don't dispute that but I fail to see how it relates to Secretariat, Seattle Slew and Affirmed.
The Belmont is becoming meaningless in my opinion because horses simply aren’t asked to run 1 1/2 miles anymore,except at the Belmont. It is the only Grade 1 stakes race in America which goes that long. Plus with the breed changing the way it has the race could begin to lose its luster especially if we do not have a horse that attempting to win the TC. I actually believe Baffert when he says if Silver Charm had seen Touch Gold he would have dug in and possibly held him off. I would also like to see it done again but the chances are really slim for a number of reason we have discussed. I also do not want to see a watered down winner. Its to bad they can not make the TC a series of races, I dont believe there would be a shortage of horses entering. I believe you are correct that a European horse is likely to accomplish the feat before one bred here.
I think the Belmont actually serves as a tool to demonstrate the harm that has been done to the breed by the last few decades of breeding focused on speed. I don't think it is the Belmont that needs to change, but the breeding. If you carry your theory forward, the Breeder's Cup Dirt mile will be the most prestigious race in America in 25 years. I don't want to see that happen. The pendulum can swing back fairly easily by importing a prominent European sire or two (or 20) over here. I don't see it happening yet though. Losing Animal Kingdom as a sire to Australia was a big blow.
I think Baffert could be right about SC and think Smarty Jones' jockey made an error in moving too soon as well. I'm confident there will be another TC winner. You spoke about Rachel's baby the other day. I just saw an article about Cozmic One (another stupid name) who is Zenyatta's baby. He just got sent to Shireffs at Belmont. If they race each other it should be fun but I don't see them a some sort of super horses on mom alone. There is always a lot to prove.
As for this year's 3 year olds I see them as an ok crop. It will be interesting to see Honor Code, Top Billing and Shared Belief when they really get a race or two under their belts. I like Tonalist and Medal Count moving forward but the one I think could be the most interesting if and when he matures is Bobby's Kitten. He could be anything. No guarantees at all but his upside is really high.
-
Why do you think they didn't race in the Preakness? He was being pointed towards the derby and sickness caused him to not be eligible. You have a top caliber horse who you had every intent of racing in the big ones. They could have easily skipped The Peter Pan on May 10th and entered the Preakness on May 17th.
He had not run since Feb 22. Is a prep race not reasonable before throwing a horse into a Triple Crown race? Do you really think this was an evil plan to thwart California Chrome who had only won the Derby at this point?
That's the article I was referring to. I have no problem if you take Espinoza comments with a grain of salt. I take took them at face value. He knows a lot has changed from years past going into these 3 races.A lot has changed over the years. If Espinoza had said Chrome would had faced a more difficult trail than Secretariat, I could buy that (maybe), but he said it would prove Chrome was the greatest horse of all time. Evidently he is not aware of Secretariat's accomplishments post Triple Crown, or hasn't heard of John Henry, Forego, Kelso, Count Fleet or many others? Even if he had won Saturday, I could probably think of 50 better horses than his record so far without having to think hard. If he is the greatest of all time I look forward to him easily dispatching Palace Malice and Wise Dan and others later this year. That should be awesome. I hope he goes off 1-9.
There are races after the Belmont.
No I was not Insinuating Secretariat, Seattle Slew and Affirmed were juiced. But we all know that trainers pushing the envelope when it comes to these races is and has been a big problem from milk-shaking, blood doping, and use of epogen to gain an unfair edge.You weren't but you were?
No knock on Woody. He made a gutsy call to run Cielo. I still believe that he was a pretty fresh horses not having to mix it up in the derby and preakness. Cielo was a very nice horse and showed a ton of promise as a 2 year old. He was probably the most talented horse that year. Not to knock his Belmont win but no one was at all excited about that field, some considered it to be a weak field.Agreed on the overall quality of the horses in 1982 and even on the status of Cielo in the bigger picture, but the question is whether or not it was somehow unfair that he ran in the Belmont. It wasn't.
In fact he ran against what was there in 1982, which included both the Derby and Preakness winners plus the supposed super horse Linkage. 1982 had what it had. There wasn't some big horse missing from that field was there? Runaway Groom?
The race was weak only because 1982 was weak. It had all the 1982 players.
I am not advocating for Coburns plan because its not going to work. You laid out plenty of reason's why. Many which I agree with. I also agree the whole triple crown thing is over blown. The grand daddy of them all is the Kentucky Derby and Chrome won that convincingly. He followed that up with a nice win the Preakness. I think he should have shut him down at that point. Why risk the health of your horse for a some what meaningless Belmont? He came out of the Preakness nice and healthy. There focus should have been on the Breeders Cup going forward. The Belmont is an anomaly with today's horses being bred for speed.
Meaningless Belmont? I don't think overblown is the right word for the Triple Crown. I just recognize it for what it is and isn't. It would still be an important achievement and will be again when it is won again. It could have easily been won on several occasions since the last time. I am 95% convinced that if Easy Goer and Sunday Silence were born a year apart they would have both won. When it is won, I will enjoy all of the hoopla like everyone else, but also realize that the winner will likely be very challenged against older horses in the fall of his 3 year old year. The overblown part of the TC is that it is for 3 year olds. Whoever wins will be deemed the greatest ever by a media with the attention span of a small group of gnats and they will all ask what is wrong when the horse doesn't sweep everything that fall. I hope the next winner is the greatest of all time but I doubt he will be.
I'd like to see a horse win the Triple Crown. I would have liked to see Chrome do it. But to win a watered down version by eliminating competitors would have stripped a huge portion of the accomplishment.
The Derby is by far the most hyped race of the year and I enjoy that as much as the next guy, but all three races have great tradition and all have their important place in history. I would not go as far as you did in ranking the Derby so far ahead of the other two. It certainly gets some of that status, but all three are Grade 1's and very important. The Derby definitely benefits from being first on the calendar. As a grouping the Triple Crown obviously has its history. IMO, it is one that should not be watered down so that we can get some false thrill.
I also think the lack of a TC winner demonstrates the poor judgement behind the industry in general with all the speed breeding. There is a place for speed breeding and always has been, but to me it got way out of hand. The trend has not rendered the Belmont moot, the Belmont helps measure generation versus generation and demonstrates how the pendulum swung too far. The pendulum needs to swing back and the Belmont is one of the strongest pieces of evidence. Like I said earlier, I think it is very possible we could see a European waltz over here and take the TC. I'm not sure how many would try because they care about their prestigious races more. We could see a horse that is turf bred do it; like someone by Kitten's Joy.
-
We also need to change the rules for golf and tennis so "fresh players" can't steal anyone's Grand Slam. No more showing up at the British Open in July if you didn't compete in the Masters. Do you realize how long it's been since we had a GS winner in either of those two sports?
Something must be done!
Can we still consider them great achievements?
-
Tonalist could not have run in the Derby even if owner Robert Evans and trainer Christophe Clement wanted him to. Under the points system used to qualify for the Derby, Tonalist wasn't even close to making that field.
Most trainers, owners, and jockeys have clearly stated that the time line for the triple crown races is not healthy for young horses yet they still run them....I dont believe a little sickness would have derailed the horse up to this point, a major injury of some sort yes.
Victor Espinoza was asked about the TC prior to the race and he said its almost impossible today they way its set up for so many fresher horses to enter the race. I'd say he knows a thing or two.
Tonalist missed the opportunity to run in the Florida Derby (or perhaps another prep race) due to his sickness. Clearly he is a good enough horse to be running in TC races but under Coburn's ridiculous (just give it to 'em) idea, Clement would have either had to push a sick horse to a prep or forfeit running in a race for which he knew he could have Tonalist ready. And your belief about "a little sickness" is inaccurate. Horses are very often scratched from prominent races and have their training delayed for weeks due to coughs and slight fevers. Clement absolutely did the right thing for the horse.
I am not a huge Andrew Beyer fan but here is his article, partially on the subject.
No such idea has occurred to anybody else in the history of horse racing.I think the quote above pretty much sums things up.
As for Espinoza's opinion of the situation you'll pardon me if I take it with a grain of salt. I can't find the article but I read one which quoted Espinoza as saying that if CC did win the Triple Crown he would have to be considered the greatest horse of all time. I'm guessing that is the same article you referenced and ran Wed or Thu or Belmont week. Don't you think that undermines his credibility just a bit?
People may say the Triple Crown "has always been that way". But in actuality with today's advancements in breeding, conditioning and veterinary medicine standards, the competition is far more fit and race ready to upset a horse that has been grinding it out during the previous five weeks. So yes only a super, super, super horse would be able to overcome this disadvantage. Until then the opportunist will continue to be the spoiler unless the all or nothing (qualify with points for all events) is instituted. People are saying California Chrome didn't have it, have it to do what? Beat 8 horses who were somewhere sleeping while he was out running?
Horse racing isn't only about the money! Nor is it only about false manners. We probably wouldn't want to know why there were so many triple crowns in the '70s, and why there have been none since, but the horses are probably better for it.
I partially agree but the part you leave out is that for about three decades now, North American breeding has been focused more on speed and less on stamina. I think Lucky Pulpit is an interesting mid-tier sire for a few reasons, but I think I am accurate in stating that he never won past 5-1/2 Furlongs. This trend is most certainly a determining factor in the lack of a TC winner. It is not everything, but it is a factor. Although primarily bred for grass I would not be at all surprised to see the next TC winner come from a European sire line. A turf sire occasionally gets a great dirt offspring and it is bound to happen at some point that a prominent European or Middle Eastern outfit sees the opportunity and grabs it.
Insinuating Secretariat, Seattle Slew and Affirmed were juiced (if that is what you just did) is not well founded in my opinion.
Lets not make it appear as if he had been racing all along. Conquistador Cielo had given warning that he was something special when he was clearly the best 2-year-old in New York until he fractured a small bone in his shin. That injury laid him up from last August until February the following year. He ran well in two allowance races in Florida in February winning the second by four lengths but reinjured his shins and was again sidelined, until May 8. I would say he was relatively fresh since injuries prevented him from running in the derby and the preakness. Initially his trainer who I believe won like 5 Belmonts in a row had no intentions of racing him but the horse came out of that grade 1 Met Mile race so well he rolled the dice a few days before the Belmont an entered knowing his horse had not really been tested and was definitely fresher than the rest of the field. It was a very low turn out for the race only like 40,000 fans showed and the track was in deplorable conditons after a ton of rain.
Well, Cielo had two races under his belt in May where his most prominent rivals Aloma's Ruler and Gato Del Sol each had only one, but that really isn't the point. You already made my point. Woody Stephens, who in fact did win 5 Belmonts in a row (you say that like it is a bad thing) did not push Cielo into the earlier races. Some may think this was cowardly because they don't get their Triple Crown winner sponsored by Hot Pockets, but to have run him would have been cruel.
But let's go back to 1982 and slap Coburn's restrictions on the Belmont. Taking the horses that ran in the Derby and the Preakness and entered the Belmont would have given the 1982 Belmont Stake a whopping field size of ZERO. Great plan.
If you assume that the runners in the first two would have stayed the course due to their advantage the field would have been Laser Light, Bold Style and Reinvested. I think we did a little better getting to see Cielo.
Instituting Coburn's plan would make both the Preakness and the Belmont restricted stakes races. As I'm sure you're aware, that is a technical term in racing, not just a description. Restricted Stakes are not graded stakes by definition. With fields of zero or three good luck in keeping the ungraded Belmont a prominent American race.
-
You don't. There's still a payout. I think TC cited that Citation (1948) only faced 15 horses total in his Triple Crown winning campaign. Secretariat only raced against 4 other horses in his Belmont. He only went up against 4 horses? Yep...
No offense but this post and your others before it show that you know very little about horse racing, which probably means your ideas to improve it have little merit. The suggestion that Secretariat won because he had it easy is stupefying. I would categorize Sham as significantly better than Chrome and I think very few would argue. Still, that is pretty meaningless because Secretariat's Belmont crushed everything before or after it. Bob Beamon times 10.
If there were a thread about cricket I would refrain from telling everyone how to improve the game.
-
No not at all... There would be many years without a trophy. What I am saying is hold the races for the owners that want to challlenge the test in a fair and sportsmanlike way... Like they used to.
Anyway... By the end of the second race, if the first race winner wasn't hurt or dropped out, we would know if there was a chance @ a winner.
Again... Just for owners and horses that want to take the challenge fair and on the square.
Derby, Preakness, and Belmont can do their own thing... Or one of them (or more) can join the consortium...
I'm pretty sure the reason that hasn't been tried before is because it is a stupid idea.
How could you ever force the losing horses from the first leg to compete in the second? The third?
How does each race build its own status as a Grade 1 race?
-
Then what they should probably do is leave the Derby, Preakness, & Belmont alone. Take the Trophy to three other parks/downs and race for it there. Split it off. Run the same distances, same time interval... And cap the fields. Market that as the Triple Crown. Heck they could even float venues each year by distance. Kind of what auto racing did with Indy/Cart schism. Tracks through the country (and Canada) would love the attention (and revenue).
This isn't trolling. It may be what people want to see. Start a new tradition and prestige even if it means downgrading the prestige of the old races.
I don't even understand what you wrote but keep in mind that there is no one governing body over horse racing. There is no "they" to do whatever it is that you are proposing. Other than that, I'm sure it is a great idea.
-
Agree with you E, was a time while it was never a rule, there was a gentleman's agreement that each ran their horses in all three races. We do not live in a generation of honor these days, but one of the self far to often. Tonalist gets the skunk award for 2014 in my view
That has simply not been true for a long time now. The explosion of the Kentucky Derby into a 20 horse bonanza eradicated anything resembling that.
When confronted with change, hide bedind the saftey of the horses. That trumps all. I have to admit, it is lock tight.
I have seen too many horses die on the track under the best of conditions to take the above seriously. I have come to the realization that you have been trolling for the second half of this thread. Congratulations on fooling me for a while.
I agree. I am not saying Secretariat wasn't super... That he was. BUT when a super horse comes along, it seems now, everybody wants to take a pop @ him. Then, some will hide behind safety.
I think there is more disrespect now than in Secretariat's day. How can two horses train all month on a track and then show up?
California Chrome is nothing close to a super horse. The rest of his career will make this obvious. He will be anywhere from decent with a few more wins in mid-tier stakes races (my guess) or competitive in the upper echelon for this year and next (I'd bet against that). Both Tonalist and Medal Count, along with the previously injured Honor Code, Shared Belief and possibly Cairo Prince and Constitution will probably prove superior.
As for horses training and then racing? That's is how it is done in everything from a maiden race to a Stakes race.
-
1948-1973 was only 25 years. How many attempts failed? We are going on 13 failed attempts in 36 years. Something different is going on.
No. Of course stick him in an 11 horse field and bash him around a little... And who knows how he handles it. Still shot out of a cannon? ?? I get the worship. In context of the day and the small field it was impressive. Like beating a kid in a wheelchair. ;-P
It is like comparing Detroit's 8 game run to The Cup vs. today's 16. Today's is that much harder, even for a Secretariat.
Something different? Yes and no. The races are still being run as individual races. The notion of tying them together would have been as absurd, idiotic and abusive to the horses in 1949 as it is in 2014.
The biggest difference is that most years nowadays you see 20, or nearly 20, horses in the Derby. I am not aware of whether there was a limit lower than 20 in the past, but owners of horses who were not good enough limited themselves. With 20 horses in the Derby, the best horse wins a lot less frequently than it would in a more traditional 12 horse field. Math says that this makes a TC more difficult. If someone were to make an argument to limit the Derby to 14, I might think that was ok (I haven't thought about it that much). On the other hand, limiting an owner's ability to enter a horse in a specific race because he had not run in a previous specific race is self destructive to that race (in this case the Belmont) and to racing in general.
Your doubling down on the stupid comments about a fresh horse beating Secretariat are still wrong. And in fact sometimes owners won't enter certain races because they know they will be beaten. There was simply no one in 1973 that was going to beat Secretariat and no context other than what you saw on video is necessary.
Below is exhibit A of the evidence that sometimes owners wait for more winnable races. It is a rare and extreme example, but it is still valid.
LoL... ;-)
Making light of it. I am not for radical change, but there needs to be tweaking. They tweaked it througn the years. No way a horse can get "sick" and then practice all month on a track and come in fresh. That's not sportsmanship. That's like somebody working all year and then getting bumped on the work roster by higher seniority for one day... Like when the holiday gift if being rolled out. That's just plain being pimp. Tonalist & Commissioner were this year's pimps. 12 and running!
These are incredibly ignorant comments regarding the training, racing, and health of horses.
-
You talk tradition, but have no desire going back 40 years or more? You want to start @ 30 when all the BS started. No cherry picking please.
You gotta be kidding that they were scared of Secretariat. They were all in the game. Nobody would have dreamed of putting a fresh horse in due to the backlash. It was a different era... More honor amongst the kings.
I don't think anybody is saying make it one event. At least to an extent, make it attainable like it used to be. Put the honor back into the loosely constructed trio or don't even offer a trophy for it. Right now it is completly unattainable... It has been that way for the last 35 years... Coincidence you have only been watching for the last 30? The BS started 35 years... Funny how Tonalist owner's daddy owned Pleasant Colony (1980) and was one of the first of 12 to get boned out of the Triple Crown. What's he embracing? The spoiler role to avenge his daddy.
You seen the buzz created by Cali Chrome... It is good for racing... Unfortunately, the sport is declining because owner's game the races for their own self interest. Gee, that's a shock.
That's all that I am saying. Why even have a Triple Crown @ all if all there are is spoilers and no honor among the kings. It is a sport of kings like you said. Time to tie up King John and sign the Magna Carta. The kings will still have power.
;-P
You have no idea what you are talking about.
I only go back 30 years because of the date of my birth (well, maybe a little more than 30 years as I am a bit older than I actually realize). I don't need to make charts and graphs because I have followed the sport and I understand it in detail. I also don't need to have charts to tell me Tony Gwynn was a good hitter because I followed his career. If you want to find out why you are wrong (well, one of the hundred reasons anyway) then you go and make the charts.
To suggest Evans is embracing some sort of spoiler role or is out for revenge is simply idiotic. I'd like to pick a softer word to use there (like naive, or uninformed) but those would be insufficient. Evans entered Tonalist simply because he was ready to contend in one of the most important races in the sport. You are upset because the owner of a horse acted in his own self interest? Other than the horse, whose interest was he supposed to act in? Someone who wants a watered down achievement? Then why not just name every year's Derby winner the Triple Crown winner because everyone wants it to happen? Maybe the entire NFL should lay down for the next two years so the Seahawks can have a threepeat.
As a point of clarification the original goal was to have Tonalist pointed toward the Derby but a sickness prevented that. Are people really arguing that the same sickness should have disqualified him from the Belmont?
And what was going on between 1948 and 1973? Was that chicanery too?
California Chrome is not a Triple Crown winner because he did not winn all three races. Period. It is not because of a conspiracy. It is not because someone cheated. It is because he lost the Belmont.
Before Chrome's loss and the subsequent rant, I had never heard anyone complain about new shooters in Triple Crown races. Ever. This includes the owners of Spectaular Bid, Pleasant Colony, Charismatic, Silver Charm, War Emblem, Funny Cide, Smarty Jones or Big Brown, all of whom lost to new shooters. It also includes owners of Alysheba, Sunday Silence, and Real Quiet who lost to old shooters. It also includes the winners of the Preakness and Belmont who lost the Derby or winners of the Derby and Belmont who lost the Preakness. But don't let that stand in the way of Chrome's owner wanting to change the entire landscape of the sport and call everyone a coward. Would a brave Evans have run a sick Tonalist in the Derby and risk the horse's life?
Another point of note is that if you lined up Spectacular Bid, Pleasant Colony, Charismatic, War Emblem, Funny Cide, Smarty Jones, Big Brown, Alysheba, Sunday Silence and Real Quiet in a strting gate, most of the ones who lost to the new shooters would be the long shots in the race. Certianly Funny Cide, Charismatic, War Emblem and Big Brown should be 20+-1 in that race. Spectacular Bid would probably be favored or close, Smarty Jones would be a contender and Pleasant Colony would be about 10-1. Spectacular Bid had an excuse in his Belmont (stepped on an industrial safety pin) as did Smarty Jones (poor ride by the jockey). Pleasant Colony lost to Summing not because he was a new shooter, but because he got away with a slow pace. Alysheba and Sunday Silence would be second and third choice with Real Quiet a fringe player. California Chrome? 15-1 if I'm being very generous.
The linked article, written just before the Belmont, references a lot factors about the dearth of TC winners. The writer spoke to a lot of people that know a thing or two. Not one of them mentioned new shooters. Why? Because the races are individual races and placing weird restrictions on them because of the hot pockets crowd would be a profound disservice to the sport.
Just imagine if Coburn comes out BEFORE the race as says that there are two track ringers, Tonalist & Commissioner in the race... That they have been practicing @ the track for a month prior to The Belmont Stakes. My God, how that would FUBAR things. This is a betting sport. The Exacta on a $2 bet paid $348 dollars. Wow.. Nice.
Of course Coburn's hoping he can over come the two and stick it in their faces. Should the race really be run like that?
Speaking of Secretariat... Back then who wants to foul up a legend. Yeah, some fresh horses may have been scared, scared of the backlash. In the last 35 years it is self-interest that has crept more in. Then there are the 3 Triple Crown winners in a decade (1970's). They swung the pendulum back except this time they swung it to impossible by wiping all honor out of the races. Secretariat, Seatlle Slew, & Affirmed had benefit of that honor. Now we see what a drought of 36 years brings to the sport where anything goes.
There are two ways to change. One is on your own accord, embracing change. The other is being forced to change against your will. I am afraid the sport is going the later way.
Please just stop. Coburn considered every horse except Ride on Curlin and General A Rod to be cowards. He wanted the TC handed to him. Sorry but no.
And really just stop with the fresh horse vs. Secretariat angle. No horse in history had come within 20 LENGTHS of that performance and no horse since (41 years) has come within 12. Old shooter, new shooter, or shot out of a cannon, every horse in the history of the world would have lost that day except one. Secretariat.
-
Speaking of tradition,in the old days the same horses ran and the fields got smaller. In the Kentucky Derby they would run like 12 horses. In the Preakness about 7, in the Belmont about 5 or 6 horses. All of them the same horses. Now every single race there are fresh horses. In Secretariat's Triple Crown run he had to beat just 5 horses in the Preakness and 4 at Belmont. The last Triple Crown winner Affirmed in 1978 had to beat 6 horses at the Preakness and only 4 at the Belmont. California Chrome who beat more challengers in the Kentucky Derby (18) than Citation faced in his entire Triple Crown campaign (15) back in 1948. California Chrome faced 10 in Saturday's Belmont. Of the 11 horses who have won the Triple Crown none ran against more than seven horses at the Belmont.
I have no desire to go back through 40 years of fields with 3 races each year and build some kind of chart for 120 races including new shooters and horses who ran all 3. I've watched these races for over thirty years and I know how things have gone. Secretariat had to beat fewer horses because he scared off the rest. His Belmont validated that fear. It was 20 lengths bettter than any race ever run at a mile and a half in history. It would not have mattered if there were nine fresh horses in that race that day. If anyone can't see that I don't know what more to say.
There is no graded stakes of any sort which requires a horse had run in a prescribed previous race. The grading process looks at race history to determine its 1, 2, 3 or ungraded status. These grades are changed on a regular basis. With fields of 6 in the Preakness and 3 in the Belmont there would be no justification for these races remaining Grade 1 for long. The entire aura of the TC would disintegrate. I want to repeat that this is the stupidest idea I have ever heard. There are many, many reasons beyond the ones I have already mentioned.
I remember a horse that would be considered a fresh horse by the standards laid oout in this thread and by Coburn. I have linked the Youtube of his Belmont.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDuajNdfTek
He had not run in the Derby or the Preakness. So he was fresh, right? WRONG (that is a little throwback for some of the old timers). The Belmont was run on a Saturday. On Monday of that same week, Cielo had beaten older horses at one mile in the Grade 1 Met Mile. He was a 3 year old beating older horses and then running the Belmont 5 days later. This set up Conquistador Cielo as one of the most intriguing stallion prospects in history and paid the owner handsomely (FWIW he turned out to be just an above average sire). By Coburn's ridiculous new set of standards, he would have been inelgible for the Belmont because he would have been considered fresh and the owner would have forfeited his hadsome ROI.
That was actually a pretty interesting year. The Derby winner, Gato Del Sol sat out the Preakness because there was a heavy favorite by the name of Linkage. Linkage was defeated in the Preakness by a horse name Aloma's Ruler. Later in the year I attended the Travers which featured all 3 of the TC race winners. Guess who won? None of them. Races are individual and need to stay that way. The Triple Crown links these three races in an unoffical manner only. It comes off as one event due to the history and the hype. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy it as much as the next guy, but officially making it one event would be a huge mistake.
-
I don't think most people would want Coburn's solution, but just a spreading out of the dates.
Although I understand this, I still disagree with it. Part of my disagreement is based on tradition and keeping that tradition fully intact. The other part goes to the fact that there is no practical way of even getting it done. The three race are governed by three different entities. If Kentucky wanted to move the Derby to the first Saturday in April, they could. Same goes for Pimlico and NYRA (Belmont). All of this would impact the prep seasons at Gulfstream, Aqueduct, Santa Anita, Keeneland, Lousiana, Arkansas and other places. It is very impractical. I suspect that the biggest change of all would be the gradual disintegration of the TC. There would be competitors to the races popping up if the races spread out. A big purse at a race in California may lure horses away because the timing was better for the money available. That in itself would be ok; it has happened before (see Spend a Buck) but the frequency would increase. Racing in general has seen some tough times for a while now. New York and Kentucky are doing ok but I think spreading these race out might just be the nail in Pimlico's coffin.
I remember in the 80s D. Wayne Lukas (who has improved with age, but was a real self centered guy back then) suggested changing the distances to a 1 1/8 Derby, maintaining the 1 3/16 Preakness and 1 1/4 Belmont. This was dumb. Only 10% as dumb as Coburn but still dumb. Lukas' horses had a general reputation of not being get a distance. His suggestion was also self serving.
The game is the game. It is tough. That is part of what makes it great and why true greatness can show itself in the Triple Crown.
-
I don't want to come off as a know it all, but I will re-state that all of these arguments are ridiculous. It is not even something I consider an opinion. It is simply a fact. These are three distinct races. Calling them the Triple Crown is very cool. It will be great to see the next winner and there absolutely will be one. If they implement the rules suddenly advocated by this owner, we will see Triple Crown winners very frequently and it will become meaningless. We will also see many more injured horses than we already do as horses scramble to make it to the Derby when they should really wait.
Between 1948 and 1973 a lot of people thought we had seen the last Triple Crown winner. And look what happened at the end of this wait. And to say Secretariat would have been in danger if fresh horses were being run is ludicrous beyond compare. His Belmont beat the second best mile and a half race ever run before by 20+ lengths. Not the second best Belmont, not the second best mile and a half race that year, but the second best mile and a half race ever run anywhere in the world ever in hundreds of years of racing. The video at the beginning of this thread says it all.
I don't really care to go back and document how many Preaknesses and Belmonts had new shooter entries. This is because it is nothing new and has been happening forever. There has never been and should never be a prerequisite for entering the Preakness and Belmont of having run in the Derby. I am not aware of any thoroughbred race that has another race as a prerequisite. There is some of this in harness racing with qualifiers and such. We do enough to satisfy the instant gratification crowd already. Do we really need to make up new rules for horse racing too? With these rules, the 2014 Belmont would have contained CC, Ride on Curlin and General A Rod. And the Preakness would have been the same three horses. What an achievement that would have been.
The biggest change over the last 30 years or so is really Derby fever. Owners and trainers are doing everything they can to win the Derby. Or maybe just make it to the Derby. This results in some very good horses being injured on the way to Louisville, and many horses being spent after Louisville and before Baltimore. Coburn's solution is to either have these horses stressed even more at an early stage of their 3 year old season or to be ineligible for two important races. And that is because he felt entitled to owning a TC winner. The whole rant is a joke.
I could probably list 100 other reasons (how about the fact that there is no singular body governing racing like the MLB or the NFL) why this won't and shouldn't happen.
Billy Turner, the trainer of Seattle Slew (1977) was quoted as saying that there is not really any way to train for the TC as a whole. He said he knew Slew could win the Derby and Preakness but had no idea about the Belmont. CC is no Seattle Slew and should not be made to look like one by lessening of the of the obstacles to a Triple Crown.
-
Yeah... But years ago, how would the horse racing circle of treated Tonalist's owner for keeping him out of the previous two? I am glad Coburn expressed it. The group doesn't say boo for what Tonalist's owner did... Maybe they should? This keeps up where there is no honor amongst the guys racing, there will be silly changes. Racing could have benefited from a Triple Crown winner. The game is so different in many ways than in the past... Horses are so differnent too. There probably won't be another Triple crown winner ever if the races are continued to be gamed...
I hate to disagree so vehemently but this entire conversation brought up by the owner of California Chrome is wrong and ridiculous. First of all, The Kentucky Derby, Preakness and Belmont are three separate, prestigious Grade 1 races. Each has its own tradition which is over 100 years old. Each has a high purse which offers owners a return on their substantial investment in the game. Each has its own meaning to future breeding rights. The Triple Crown is simply a title given to the three race combination. It is not a singular event and never has been. There have been horses that have individual specialties that fit each of these races every year that I have watched it for the last 30 or so. These horses are now to be excluded because one horse failed at the 2014 Belmont?
The owners' complaining about how it isn't fair to the horses is far off base. In fact, the requirement to run in the Derby and the Preakness as a prerequisite for the Belmont would be grossly unfair to the horses. However powerful they may be these are delicate animals and forcing them on a schedule of 3 races in a 5 week span is absolutely ludicrous. The fact that he even brought this up as a topic just blew my mind. Every owner and trainer should do what is right by the horse. If he isn't ready for the Kentucky Derby (not quite there maturity wise, coming off a fever, coming off an injury, or a thousand other reasons) but is ready for the Belmont, he should run in the Belmont. Period. If a trainer pushed a horse to the Derby when he was 90% and the horse suffered a fatal injury, what would the story line be? If this owner's argument is ever taken seriously in any way, it would be a horrible shame.
CC's owner came into today looking like a small time working class hero and would have left the same if he were gracious in defeat. Instead he called Mr. Evans a coward. I can assure you that Mr. Evans has forgotten more about horses, horse racing and the industry than this guy will ever know. His statements immediately went to the top of my list for most unsportsmanlike things I have ever seen. I hope he profusely apologizes and says the emotion of the moment got to him.
I though NBC handled it almost as poorly as the owner. The interviewer kept asking for more which was bad enough. Costas bringing it up in the winner's circle with the winning owner and the governor there was horrible. Let them enjoy the moment this guy has worked for decades to see. This is the Sport of Kings, not some reality show Bob.
-
I wasn't a Brown fan either for the same reason.
Curious if you're following Jess's Dream at all? I think a lot of racing enthusiasts are intrigued by the lineage.
Great horse.
Agreed on Real Quiet. To me he was just a cut (or two) below Easy Goer/SS. Animal Kingdom is another one even though he won just one TC race. It was a true shame to lose him as an American stallion. He had very intriguing lines and could have offered a lot to the industry. I see his potential as being like a Kitten's Joy but for both dirt and turf horses.
As for Jess's dream I am not following yet. I loved Curlin and Rachel but any foal is a hit and miss proposition. Also I entered the naming contest for the horse and they go and name it Jess's Dream. I get why, but then why have a contest? I can't share the name of my entry because I am saving it for when I own a horse (two days after I hit the lottery). On name alone the horse would be destined for greatness.
-
Great post...I would've also mentioned Alysheba, Easy Goer and Sunday Silence (the Pat Day vs. Pat Valenzuela races back then were fantastic to watch).
I still think Big Brown would've won if he hadn't thrown a shoe in the Belmont, but who knows?
I was a big Easy Goer fan and somewhat of a Pat Day fan, but they did not go well together. Day got him beat in the Preakness (probably) and the BC Classic (absolutely). Spectacular Bid and Alysheba were both Great. I think Bid was better. My favorite horse ever was Java Gold who was a 3 year old late bloomer during Alysheba's year. I attended the Travers that year which had Polish Navy, Cryptoclearance, Gulch, Bet Twice, Alysheba and Java Gold (winner). Now that was a race and a great year for 3 year olds.
I was not a Big Brown fan at all and think of him as a symbol for what has gone wrong with racing over the past few decades. Although he had stamina on the dam side, there was none at all in his sire line until a few generations back and even those were better milers. Danzig was a sprint sire who produce Boundary who was a sprint sire who produced Big Brown. He was never meant to try a mile and a half. That Belmont field he faced was amazingly weak. This year's is far better and can challenge Chrome, but he has definitely been up for the challenges so far.
-
This was the single biggest anomaly of which I am aware to ever occur in sports. It is not just the distance by which he won, but the time in which he ran it. At that time, I believe it was more than 2 sends faster than any other mile and a half race in the history of racing. This means that the second best race ever run at that distance would have produced a horse 13 lengths or so behind Secretariat. 41 years later it is still more than a full second faster than the second best time ever. It would be like someone hitting a 700 foot home run or kicking a 94 yard field goal. Or maybe a better example is if Roger Bannister ran a 3:40.
California Chrome is good. His story has some similarities to other great horses. He is no Secretariat, but that is not really a knock on him. He has caught a few breaks this year because some other very good horses fell off the trail before the Derby. There are a few threats tomorrow. Personally I think Tonalist, Wicked Strong and Medal Count and major long shot Matuszak are possible upsetters. In the long run I think Tonalist and Medal Count will prove to be very good. Tonalist is still inexperienced and Medal Count may end up better on grass than dirt.
I'd sort of like to see him do it but would love to see another Secretariat come along some day, or at least another Affirmed. There are some very good horses over the past 15 years or so that have whiffed in the Belmont after winning the first two. It is a grueling task. Alysheba, Smarty Jones and Silver Charm come to mind. Going back further even Spectacular Bid succumbed. CC is no Spectacular Bid. I also think there were two real Triple Crown horses since Affirmed but they had to run against each other and that stopped them both. Easy Goer and Sunday Silence.
-
Here's another. There is also a nice live version available on Youtube. I don't know if the original is really a classic but it is well known.
-
Thank you all for your kind words. A tumor in her lung is pressing against her vocal chord I was told by the dr. She has lost the ability to speak. What I wouldn't do just to hear her sweet voice one more time.
There is a malignet (sp?) mass in her bowels that is causing the blockage. It is inoperable. They said they wouldn't do surgery because her insides is loaded with cancer. They also said, if they could not somehow open the blockage, she could possibly have two weeks. Even if by some miracle they did open it up, she would have maybr two months.
I knew deep in my heart that when I called 911 for an ambulance, that she was never coming home again. This question is for someone who has lost a spouse, how do you go on after there gone? I come home to take care of my pets and the house feels so empty. Will the pain ever go away? I watch her laying there, struggeling to breath, watching her waste away.Then I think of all the promises to her these past sixteen months telling her she was going to be ok. I knew they where lies. I never thought it would be so quick. I always thought we would have more time. Please, if you are still reading this. Don't put off that trip, vacation or whatever you and your loved one have been planning to go someday. Because sometimes tomorrow never comes and instead of happy memories, you have a big bag of regrets. Don't make my mistake. Tell your special loved one that you love them. Thank you for letting me vent.
I will pray for you and your wife.
When you think of what your wife has meant to you, truly meant to you, reverse it, and that is what you meant to her. Your advice is good for all of us but don't have a big bag of regrets, because every day you were on a trip with your wife that was far more important than any vacation or planned event. Every person who has ever lived could have done one more thing, or corrected one more mistake, or said something differently. We should all strive for these things every day, but the best we can do is to get closer to that perfection. None of us can ever achieve it. You mustn't judge yourself against that standard. Without even knowing you, I can tell from these posts that your wife has a good husband. The little moments, the dish washing, snow shoveling, grocery shopping tend to be the boring parts, but they also tend to provide little surprises or laughs that we all remember with our loved ones. Even when they don't, the time itself helps build the foundation or roots for all of those things to grow. Vacations, events and trips are important and memorable, but they are nothing without that foundation. The foundation is what is most important and what will last in your heart.
I believe that the pain you feel is a reflection of the love you have. That love can't be taken away by the pain, time, or even death. It is yours and hers. Without that love, we wouldn't feel the pain. Let the pain remind you of the love.
Your promises to her that everything would be ok weren't lies. It will be. Maybe not in ways that anyone understands, but it will be ok. I don't feel qualified to offer advice on how you go on, but I would say that using the foundation you have built together can help you and others. In the end, the love that you built is the true foundation. I believe that love can endure as a foundation even after the people who created it are gone. Everything we all do has an impact on others. Make use of your foundation to have that impact be positive. That doesn't necessarily mean do charity work every day or visit the elderly or give away your money (although it does for some people). Be you, find your way. Use your foundation. And take your time. Know that even the little things like posting on a Bills web site, or holding the door open for a stranger, have an impact. Not everyone will know the foundation from which your positive impact comes, but in a small way, it will help them build their own foundation.
There has been so much good advice in this thread that I think everyone has been able to absorb something from it. I know I have. I haven't experienced what you are or lost a parent like others have mentioned. I hope I remember this thread if and when I go through this. We all owe you thanks for sharing your personal story because I'm sure we have all benefited from it in some way. I just changed my signature line to a lyric from a favorite song of mine. The line always hits me because I think it is about everyone and what we all can be for each other in ways large and small.
Thank you for bringing this to us and helping us all think about what is important.
-
I have been meaning to post this for a while, but I knew it would be long and I needed to find time. Thanks to the word insober (easily remembered) in the title, finding the thread was easy.
I am heavily biased as he is my favorite musician ever, and he is generally held in high regard, but I am convinced Mark Knopfler in incredibly underrated. This includes his days with Dire Straits, his solo work during that time and especially his solo work post Dire Straits.
He is most known for his phenomenal and unique guitar playing, which I still think is underrated as he plays every guitar type and style imaginable. What seems to go unnoticed is general musicianship. He is known as a rock star, but has many fantastic songs that could be classified as Rock, Gospel, Blues, Country, and several other genres. When you listen a few times you realize the relative ease with which he masters all of these styles and the respect with which he plays them.
His songs have such staying power for me that I often find myself re-discovering old ones that I had almost forgotten and finding out that they become among my favorites when I give them a good listen. In his whole library I find maybe three or four songs that I don't like as much and they are typically the ones that are meant to be funny. "Money for Nothing" is not a bad song, but was overplayed and maybe his best known song besides "Sultans of Swing". That is a shame.
His greatest talent in my opinion is as a songwriter. Yes, that is even over and above his guitar skills. From the beginning with songs like "Lions" and "Wild West End" I found many of his songs to be very unique. His latest CD has "Dream of the Drowned Submariner" and "Yon Two Crows" which I find to be so different in style or lyric that I'm not sure I've ever heard anything quite like them. Many of his songs are about people; some famous, some just regular people, but they always have a different way of showing the dignity of that person without being pretentious. It doesn't matter if it is someone real, like Ray Kroc or Sonny Liston, or someone imagined like the divorced man in "A Place Where We Used To Live" or the traveling gospel singers in "Baloney Again". Even the dignity of a ship in "So Far From the Clyde" is something he describes perfectly. He seems to be able to tell a story about anyone to which anyone can easily relate. I would recommend listening to the spiritual "In the Sky" a few times or "Piper to the End" which is about an uncle he never met who died in WWI. He also did some of his best work without using words via soundtracks. The two most famous are probably "The Princess Bride" and "Local Hero, but there are several others.
So many individual phrases in his songs stick with me. "You can fall for chains of silver, you can fall for chains of gold, you can fall for pretty strangers, and the promises they hold...."; "Too poor to be wasteful with pity or time"; "Generations toiled and hacked....for a pittance and black lung". I find amazing lyrics like this in other songs too, but I find scores in Knopfler's songs and most are very direct and personal, not abstract like the songs I love from Yes or Pink Floyd.
I don't know how anyone could write a song about 9/11 but his "If this is Goodbye" was written for the victims who placed phone calls to their loved ones when they knew they were going to die. As if "My famous last words, are laying around in tatters...." weren't brilliant enough on its own, he wrote it for the voice of Emmylou Harris. It appears on a CD of duets he made with her that is definitely worth a listen if you haven't heard it.
His collaborations are a who's who: Tina Turner, Bob Dylan (Knopfler produced Infidels), James Taylor, Emmylou, Van Morrison, Chet Atkins are among the more famous with Ruth Moody, Pieta Brown and Bap Kennedy being some of my favorite "non-famous" types.
His songs have been covered by: Mary Chapin Carpenter, The Killers, The Indigo Girls, Kenny Rogers, The Judds, Metallica, Randy Travis, Trey Anastasio, Art Garfunkel, Shooter Jennings and.....The Everly Brothers. That's not a bad list.
I know a lot of people like him, but I don't think he ever really received the icon status that he deserves. I doubt he cares. I don't really either, but I think the people that have overlooked his music have really missed out. And again I don't care, but the Rock and Roll hall of fame is a joke.
I listed a lot of songs and wanted to link one that was relatively unknown but what the heck, this one kicks in at 0:11 so I guess that makes the most sense:
-
I agree with the people who said that the reality of his mom dying probably hit home quickly after he traveled back from Jacksonville. Without practicing at least for the beginning of the week I can't see how he would be expected to play.
I really hope they keep Stevie. He has shown he can be very productive and this year was spent with a rookie QB who missed several games due to injury. He has personality, which this team desperately needs. If it were up to me, he'd stay.
13 years ago...
in Off the Wall Archives
Posted
It is so hard to believe it was that long ago. It had an such a lasting impact on America on all of us as individuals. The song in my link was written about the people making calls from the towers or plane(s) to say goodbye because they knew their fate. Those stories and recorded calls, while incredibly sad to hear, also helped me realize the almost universal desire of all of us to say things that too often remain unsaid.