I have been anti-Dull-ahan from the start and why stop now, right?
I simply see him as the latest version of Stately Victor or Make Music for Me....horses that did well in the Bluegrass, showed flashes in the Derby, were 'wiseguy' plays for the Belmont, only to fail to do anything.
The more I look at his resume, the more I am reminded that it isn't that he can't race on dirt, rather it is who has he beaten...on dirt of anywhere else.
Holy Candy, a horse that ran well in the Bluegrass, failed to mount a challenge in the Affirmed yesterday, becoming the latest Bluegrass entrant to fail to impress in the subsequent start.
Until I see Bluegrass placement horses perform in the TC races, I will play against.
I have been anti-Dull-ahan from the start and why stop now, right?
I simply see him as the latest version of Stately Victor or Make Music for Me....horses that did well in the Bluegrass, showed flashes in the Derby, were 'wiseguy' plays for the Belmont, only to fail to do anything.
The more I look at his resume, the more I am reminded that it isn't that he can't race on dirt, rather it is who has he beaten...on dirt of anywhere else.
Holy Candy, a horse that ran well in the Bluegrass, failed to mount a challenge in the Affirmed yesterday, becoming the latest Bluegrass entrant to fail to impress in the subsequent start.
Until I see Bluegrass placement horses perform in the TC races, I will play against.
Let me just change that sentence to
"I definitely DO NOT agree with the people who continue to claim Dullahan can't run on dirt."
I don't like the way that came out the first time. A little to "know it all" ish.
Let me just change that sentence to
"I definitely DO NOT agree with the people who continue to claim Dullahan can't run on dirt."
I don't like the way that came out the first time. A little to "know it all" ish.
This stuff about the Churchill dirt being "favorable to grass horses", where was this BEFORE the Derby? I looked back at the Kentucky Derby threads and I didn't see one of you saying that BEFORE the race. Then after Dullahan ran well, you guys start spewing that all over the site the next week. If you really thought that the Churchill dirt favored turf horses and you consider Dullahan a turf horse then why were all of you tossing him out?
And there was other horses in the race that had turf form. Most notably the most hyped horse of the week, Daddy Nose Best, who Welsch was touting all week as ready to run a big one. He had 6 races on turf and 2 wins and ran in two graded stakes on turf and wasn't that far behind. How come Daddy Nose Best didn't benefit from this supposed "turf horse favoring dirt track at Churchill"
Daddy Long Legs is another one who had ran well on turf and tapeta which turf horses love. All I heard all week is that he's not a dirt horse and has no chance. Not a soul said he's a turf horse who might benefit from the "turf horse favoring dirt track at Churchill"
Show me a post by anybody BEFORE the Derby that said that "Churchill was a dirt track that plays favorably to turf horses".
This stuff about the Churchill dirt being "favorable to grass horses", where was this BEFORE the Derby? I looked back at the Kentucky Derby threads and I didn't see one of you saying that BEFORE the race. Then after Dullahan ran well, you guys start spewing that all over the site the next week. If you really thought that the Churchill dirt favored turf horses and you consider Dullahan a turf horse then why were all of you tossing him out?
And there was other horses in the race that had turf form. Most notably the most hyped horse of the week, Daddy Nose Best, who Welsch was touting all week as ready to run a big one. He had 6 races on turf and 2 wins and ran in two graded stakes on turf and wasn't that far behind. How come Daddy Nose Best didn't benefit from this supposed "turf horse favoring dirt track at Churchill"
Daddy Long Legs is another one who had ran well on turf and tapeta which turf horses love. All I heard all week is that he's not a dirt horse and has no chance. Not a soul said he's a turf horse who might benefit from the "turf horse favoring dirt track at Churchill"
Show me a post by anybody BEFORE the Derby that said that "Churchill was a dirt track that plays favorably to turf horses".
I'm with you AB.
I'll be playing against Dull-ahan in the head to head matchups as well.
I'll post on this tomorrow, but with the defection of Hansen from the Woody Stephens (there are rumors that he was sick going back to the Bluegrass), the Bluegrass is fast becoming one of the worst subsequent races by participants in modern major Derby stakes races. Not one stakes winner. In fact only one horse post-Blue won a race, an allowance sore.
You do realize that Dullahan has ran another race since the Bluegrass right?
Before the Derby they were saying that this years Derby was one of the best fields of 3 yr olds ever assembled weren't they? Dullahan was 1.75 lengths from beating every one of them and it was on dirt.
So why are you so obsessed with the field in the Bluegrass. In my mind the Bluegrass doesn't matter that much anymore.
I'm with you AB.
I'll be playing against Dull-ahan in the head to head matchups as well.
I'll post on this tomorrow, but with the defection of Hansen from the Woody Stephens (there are rumors that he was sick going back to the Bluegrass), the Bluegrass is fast becoming one of the worst subsequent races by participants in modern major Derby stakes races. Not one stakes winner. In fact only one horse post-Blue won a race, an allowance sore.
You do realize that Dullahan has ran another race since the Bluegrass right?
Before the Derby they were saying that this years Derby was one of the best fields of 3 yr olds ever assembled weren't they? Dullahan was 1.75 lengths from beating every one of them and it was on dirt.
So why are you so obsessed with the field in the Bluegrass. In my mind the Bluegrass doesn't matter that much anymore.
Dangerous horse man.
By the way, when I said "dangerous horse" I meant he's got a great chance of winning the Belmont.
I didn't mean he was dangerous to bet on or anything like that.
Probably wasn't the right choice of words there.
However, I haven't picked anybody to win this race yet. It's just a discussion. I know a lot of you get confused about that. Somebody starts talking positively about a horse and you think they are picking it to win the race.
<---- That's I'll Have Another
Dangerous horse man.
By the way, when I said "dangerous horse" I meant he's got a great chance of winning the Belmont.
I didn't mean he was dangerous to bet on or anything like that.
Probably wasn't the right choice of words there.
However, I haven't picked anybody to win this race yet. It's just a discussion. I know a lot of you get confused about that. Somebody starts talking positively about a horse and you think they are picking it to win the race.
<---- That's I'll Have Another
I rewatched the Derby and focused on Dull. I am not sure what failed jockey move I see. Had he moved earlier and expended energy, whose to say he would have made up the same ground in the stretch?
I will address the past history in my next post, but in rewatching the Derby and looking at the chart, I'll Have Another, IMO, ran a tougher race. He made up 13 lengths of his post into the lightning quarter yet still had horse in the stretch. Now watch the Preakness again. After the finish, he galloped out and was making ground on the field. This is giviing me more and more confidence in his ability to make 12 furlongs.
I rewatched the Derby and focused on Dull. I am not sure what failed jockey move I see. Had he moved earlier and expended energy, whose to say he would have made up the same ground in the stretch?
I will address the past history in my next post, but in rewatching the Derby and looking at the chart, I'll Have Another, IMO, ran a tougher race. He made up 13 lengths of his post into the lightning quarter yet still had horse in the stretch. Now watch the Preakness again. After the finish, he galloped out and was making ground on the field. This is giviing me more and more confidence in his ability to make 12 furlongs.
I am not going back to look but I'm sure a lot of people who will back Dullahan are the same people backing Went the Day Well in the Preakness. Went the day well ran a better derby then dullahan and was about to blow right by him if they had any extra distance.
Went The Day Well had 2 weeks off before the Preakness. Very possible he bounced.
When the Belmont is run , Dullahan will have been off 5 weeks since his Derby run.
I am not going back to look but I'm sure a lot of people who will back Dullahan are the same people backing Went the Day Well in the Preakness. Went the day well ran a better derby then dullahan and was about to blow right by him if they had any extra distance.
Went The Day Well had 2 weeks off before the Preakness. Very possible he bounced.
When the Belmont is run , Dullahan will have been off 5 weeks since his Derby run.
You do realize that Dullahan has ran another race since the Bluegrass right?
Before the Derby they were saying that this years Derby was one of the best fields of 3 yr olds ever assembled weren't they? Dullahan was 1.75 lengths from beating every one of them and it was on dirt.
So why are you so obsessed with the field in the Bluegrass. In my mind the Bluegrass doesn't matter that much anymore.
I made this point before the Derby. Look at the Bluegrass winners for the last 15 years. It is a list of 'never heard from agains." I think the only horse with his name called in any TC race before this year is Sinister Minister who took the lead in 2006 before Barbaro blew them away.
My theory is we overvalue the Bluegrass winners. 1) They are weaker fields because owners prefer the Florida, Arkansas, Santa Anita Derbys, and Wood. Thus the winners tend to not face as much competition. 2) It is a late prep; one of the last. People tend to pay attention to what they see late. 3) The surface makes it a closer's paradise and horseplayers love closers in the Derby and Belmont.
Now, was this year's Bluegrass any different? Since the race,in order of finishing, Hansen was 9th in the Derby and rumors persist that he has been sick for months, the 3rd place horse, Gung Ho, finishes 7th as a favorite his next start. Howe Great finished 3rd, Prospective 18th, Heavy Breathing, 3rd in an allowance, Midnight Crooner won an allowance, Scatman, Ever So Lucky, Russian Greek, and PoliticallyCorrect haven't run and Hero of Order, 5th and 8th.
Given all this, I conclude that Dullahan beat nothing in the Bluegrass so I look to his other races. Who has he beat in any race? Optimizer? Majestic City?
Yes, he finished 3rd in the Derby. I am always somewhat cautious of using this to advopcate for Belmont momentum. The Derby, especially this year, sees a multiple horse meltdown in the final two furlongs as tired horses make closers appear to look like Secretariat. Yes, Dullahan was firing, but was it a result of the insane early pace (that IHA was much more part of) and horses going backward or a result of a star horse? Until I see something that shows me the latter, I'll go with the former and view him as more of an Ice Box than a Birdstone.
You do realize that Dullahan has ran another race since the Bluegrass right?
Before the Derby they were saying that this years Derby was one of the best fields of 3 yr olds ever assembled weren't they? Dullahan was 1.75 lengths from beating every one of them and it was on dirt.
So why are you so obsessed with the field in the Bluegrass. In my mind the Bluegrass doesn't matter that much anymore.
I made this point before the Derby. Look at the Bluegrass winners for the last 15 years. It is a list of 'never heard from agains." I think the only horse with his name called in any TC race before this year is Sinister Minister who took the lead in 2006 before Barbaro blew them away.
My theory is we overvalue the Bluegrass winners. 1) They are weaker fields because owners prefer the Florida, Arkansas, Santa Anita Derbys, and Wood. Thus the winners tend to not face as much competition. 2) It is a late prep; one of the last. People tend to pay attention to what they see late. 3) The surface makes it a closer's paradise and horseplayers love closers in the Derby and Belmont.
Now, was this year's Bluegrass any different? Since the race,in order of finishing, Hansen was 9th in the Derby and rumors persist that he has been sick for months, the 3rd place horse, Gung Ho, finishes 7th as a favorite his next start. Howe Great finished 3rd, Prospective 18th, Heavy Breathing, 3rd in an allowance, Midnight Crooner won an allowance, Scatman, Ever So Lucky, Russian Greek, and PoliticallyCorrect haven't run and Hero of Order, 5th and 8th.
Given all this, I conclude that Dullahan beat nothing in the Bluegrass so I look to his other races. Who has he beat in any race? Optimizer? Majestic City?
Yes, he finished 3rd in the Derby. I am always somewhat cautious of using this to advopcate for Belmont momentum. The Derby, especially this year, sees a multiple horse meltdown in the final two furlongs as tired horses make closers appear to look like Secretariat. Yes, Dullahan was firing, but was it a result of the insane early pace (that IHA was much more part of) and horses going backward or a result of a star horse? Until I see something that shows me the latter, I'll go with the former and view him as more of an Ice Box than a Birdstone.
I figured it would take someone from Looziana to get this forum fired up. I'm probably in the minority-it doesn't bother me, I voted for McGovern- but I'm giving the race to the next Triple Crown winner and my drinking philosophy I'll Have Another.
Therefore, all of my bets will be exotics or multi-race wagers. Which is where all you my Covers brothers come in. I'll be waiting with baited breath for your pick-4 or pick-6 recommendations from the undercard. Any help is appreciated. Good luck to all and don't bet the Cubs on the road, Mikey.
I figured it would take someone from Looziana to get this forum fired up. I'm probably in the minority-it doesn't bother me, I voted for McGovern- but I'm giving the race to the next Triple Crown winner and my drinking philosophy I'll Have Another.
Therefore, all of my bets will be exotics or multi-race wagers. Which is where all you my Covers brothers come in. I'll be waiting with baited breath for your pick-4 or pick-6 recommendations from the undercard. Any help is appreciated. Good luck to all and don't bet the Cubs on the road, Mikey.
I made this point before the Derby. Look at the Bluegrass winners for the last 15 years. It is a list of 'never heard from agains." I think the only horse with his name called in any TC race before this year is Sinister Minister who took the lead in 2006 before Barbaro blew them away.
My theory is we overvalue the Bluegrass winners. 1) They are weaker fields because owners prefer the Florida, Arkansas, Santa Anita Derbys, and Wood. Thus the winners tend to not face as much competition. 2) It is a late prep; one of the last. People tend to pay attention to what they see late. 3) The surface makes it a closer's paradise and horseplayers love closers in the Derby and Belmont.
Now, was this year's Bluegrass any different? Since the race,in order of finishing, Hansen was 9th in the Derby and rumors persist that he has been sick for months, the 3rd place horse, Gung Ho, finishes 7th as a favorite his next start. Howe Great finished 3rd, Prospective 18th, Heavy Breathing, 3rd in an allowance, Midnight Crooner won an allowance, Scatman, Ever So Lucky, Russian Greek, and PoliticallyCorrect haven't run and Hero of Order, 5th and 8th.
Given all this, I conclude that Dullahan beat nothing in the Bluegrass so I look to his other races. Who has he beat in any race? Optimizer? Majestic City?
Yes, he finished 3rd in the Derby. I am always somewhat cautious of using this to advopcate for Belmont momentum. The Derby, especially this year, sees a multiple horse meltdown in the final two furlongs as tired horses make closers appear to look like Secretariat. Yes, Dullahan was firing, but was it a result of the insane early pace (that IHA was much more part of) and horses going backward or a result of a star horse? Until I see something that shows me the latter, I'll go with the former and view him as more of an Ice Box than a Birdstone.
I made this point before the Derby. Look at the Bluegrass winners for the last 15 years. It is a list of 'never heard from agains." I think the only horse with his name called in any TC race before this year is Sinister Minister who took the lead in 2006 before Barbaro blew them away.
My theory is we overvalue the Bluegrass winners. 1) They are weaker fields because owners prefer the Florida, Arkansas, Santa Anita Derbys, and Wood. Thus the winners tend to not face as much competition. 2) It is a late prep; one of the last. People tend to pay attention to what they see late. 3) The surface makes it a closer's paradise and horseplayers love closers in the Derby and Belmont.
Now, was this year's Bluegrass any different? Since the race,in order of finishing, Hansen was 9th in the Derby and rumors persist that he has been sick for months, the 3rd place horse, Gung Ho, finishes 7th as a favorite his next start. Howe Great finished 3rd, Prospective 18th, Heavy Breathing, 3rd in an allowance, Midnight Crooner won an allowance, Scatman, Ever So Lucky, Russian Greek, and PoliticallyCorrect haven't run and Hero of Order, 5th and 8th.
Given all this, I conclude that Dullahan beat nothing in the Bluegrass so I look to his other races. Who has he beat in any race? Optimizer? Majestic City?
Yes, he finished 3rd in the Derby. I am always somewhat cautious of using this to advopcate for Belmont momentum. The Derby, especially this year, sees a multiple horse meltdown in the final two furlongs as tired horses make closers appear to look like Secretariat. Yes, Dullahan was firing, but was it a result of the insane early pace (that IHA was much more part of) and horses going backward or a result of a star horse? Until I see something that shows me the latter, I'll go with the former and view him as more of an Ice Box than a Birdstone.
Oh, I absolutely love the Keeneland meet. I remember an Allowance race two years ago in the fall that featured 4 stakes winners, including Hull, who won the Derby trial.
I just think the Bluegrass has not attracted the top quality fields. It really isn't about who beat who, but rather, now that we have been able to look back at the race, how is it in retrospect.
As for IHA, I agree that the Robert Lewis didn't say much, although Liason just ran 2nd in the Affirmed, but we also knew, before the Derby, that he beat Creative Cause and that CA horses were legit, as evidenced by Bodemiester going East and demolishing the field.
IHA should have had doubters although I was surprised by 19-1. We all do use the comparative horse game, both to play on and play against. There really aren't any right or wrong opinions in this game, just angles. My angle is against a horse that has little to show on paper except a win in a race without historical or current significance and 3rd a horse pace meltdown.
Come Sat. at 6:30 I will be a genious or an idiot...until the next race where I will be the opposite.
Oh, I absolutely love the Keeneland meet. I remember an Allowance race two years ago in the fall that featured 4 stakes winners, including Hull, who won the Derby trial.
I just think the Bluegrass has not attracted the top quality fields. It really isn't about who beat who, but rather, now that we have been able to look back at the race, how is it in retrospect.
As for IHA, I agree that the Robert Lewis didn't say much, although Liason just ran 2nd in the Affirmed, but we also knew, before the Derby, that he beat Creative Cause and that CA horses were legit, as evidenced by Bodemiester going East and demolishing the field.
IHA should have had doubters although I was surprised by 19-1. We all do use the comparative horse game, both to play on and play against. There really aren't any right or wrong opinions in this game, just angles. My angle is against a horse that has little to show on paper except a win in a race without historical or current significance and 3rd a horse pace meltdown.
Come Sat. at 6:30 I will be a genious or an idiot...until the next race where I will be the opposite.
Come Sat. at 6:30 I will be a genious or an idiot...until the next race where I will be the opposite.
Can't be a genius or an idiot unless you post your picks, which I haven't seen you do in years probably.
So make sure we all know who your pick is on Saturday morning, OK Mr Horse Racing Forum Mod?
Come Sat. at 6:30 I will be a genious or an idiot...until the next race where I will be the opposite.
Can't be a genius or an idiot unless you post your picks, which I haven't seen you do in years probably.
So make sure we all know who your pick is on Saturday morning, OK Mr Horse Racing Forum Mod?
Can't be a genius or an idiot unless you post your picks, which I haven't seen you do in years probably.
So make sure we all know who your pick is on Saturday morning, OK Mr Horse Racing Forum Mod?
If you can't figure out who I like from my posts, then so be it. What I haven't decided is whether I will use Union or another horse for my 'protection' backup pick. Obvious who it won't be.
The old GH, who I got along well with, was at least witty and sometimes funny. The new version is just obnoxious.
Can't be a genius or an idiot unless you post your picks, which I haven't seen you do in years probably.
So make sure we all know who your pick is on Saturday morning, OK Mr Horse Racing Forum Mod?
If you can't figure out who I like from my posts, then so be it. What I haven't decided is whether I will use Union or another horse for my 'protection' backup pick. Obvious who it won't be.
The old GH, who I got along well with, was at least witty and sometimes funny. The new version is just obnoxious.
Gutierrez | 126 | 19 | 6-hd | 7-2½ | 6-1 | 4-½ | 2-2 | 1-1½ | 15.30 |
M. Smith | 126 | 6 | 1-hd | 1-1 | 1-1 | 1-3 | 1-3 | 2-nk | 4.20 |
Desormeaux | 126 | 5 | 11-½ | 11-hd | 13-½ | 7-½ | 5-1 | 3-¾ | 12.10 |
Velazquez | 126 | 13 | 17-½ | 17-1 | 15-½ | 14-1-½ | 9-hd | 4-½ | 30.60 |
Rosario | 126 | 8 | 10-hd | 10-½ | 11-½ | 5-2½ | 3-½ | 5-4 | 11.90 |
Gutierrez | 126 | 19 | 6-hd | 7-2½ | 6-1 | 4-½ | 2-2 | 1-1½ | 15.30 |
M. Smith | 126 | 6 | 1-hd | 1-1 | 1-1 | 1-3 | 1-3 | 2-nk | 4.20 |
Desormeaux | 126 | 5 | 11-½ | 11-hd | 13-½ | 7-½ | 5-1 | 3-¾ | 12.10 |
Velazquez | 126 | 13 | 17-½ | 17-1 | 15-½ | 14-1-½ | 9-hd | 4-½ | 30.60 |
Rosario | 126 | 8 | 10-hd | 10-½ | 11-½ | 5-2½ | 3-½ | 5-4 | 11.90 |
If you can't figure out who I like from my posts, then so be it. What I haven't decided is whether I will use Union or another horse for my 'protection' backup pick. Obvious who it won't be.
The old GH, who I got along well with, was at least witty and sometimes funny. The new version is just obnoxious.
How about for a change you just make a thread and post your final plays.
It's not going to hurt anything. It'll take you a minute. Or put them in MikeyP's thread that he has for all the big stakes races. Thanks in advance.
If you can't figure out who I like from my posts, then so be it. What I haven't decided is whether I will use Union or another horse for my 'protection' backup pick. Obvious who it won't be.
The old GH, who I got along well with, was at least witty and sometimes funny. The new version is just obnoxious.
How about for a change you just make a thread and post your final plays.
It's not going to hurt anything. It'll take you a minute. Or put them in MikeyP's thread that he has for all the big stakes races. Thanks in advance.
How about for a change you just make a thread and post your final plays.
It's not going to hurt anything. It'll take you a minute. Or put them in MikeyP's thread that he has for all the big stakes races. Thanks in advance.
How about you stick purely to analysis or making picks and not complain about other posters.
You realize until you interjected with your BS, this has been a great back and forth discussion on a very big horse race.How about for a change you just make a thread and post your final plays.
It's not going to hurt anything. It'll take you a minute. Or put them in MikeyP's thread that he has for all the big stakes races. Thanks in advance.
How about you stick purely to analysis or making picks and not complain about other posters.
You realize until you interjected with your BS, this has been a great back and forth discussion on a very big horse race.so like i said Greys analysis is absolutely usesless
so like i said Greys analysis is absolutely usesless
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.