[QUOTE=SportArab;8121865]
It would be nice if we’d seen the top horses compete against one another before this.[/QUOTE]
I kind of agree, but on the other hand isn’t the Derby is a longer race than any of these horses have tried before? And I think the point of the Derby is that it is where they meet and compete. To have them do so before would kind of defeat the purpose.
[QUOTE=MidnightWriter;8127710]
I kind of agree, but on the other hand isn’t the Derby is a longer race than any of these horses have tried before? And I think the point of the Derby is that it is where they meet and compete. To have them do so before would kind of defeat the purpose.[/QUOTE]
Usually the top contenders have more overlap in their short careers. Generally they meet up somewhere along the line, since there are only so many prep races on the derby trail. Instead of traveling from track to track for the prep races, it seems like this year the horses mostly stayed with a single series. Each venue seemed to end up with one top horse in the final prep, with all of the other three year olds being of considerably lesser ability. The top horses at each track all had visually impressive victories, but we have no idea how these horses will stack up against each other when they meet Saturday.
The derby is always difficult to handicap due to the large field size and the fact that none of the horses have ever raced at 10 furlongs. But this year, it is even more difficult since we can’t directly compare the prep races at all.
Of all the horses Mubtaahij has come the closest to the 10f mark by running in two 1 3/16 races and doing it rather impressively. While it doesn’t make him my first choice not because of his record but because I wish they had shipped him over sooner and prepared him more here, it still will be interesting to see where he ends up.
I’m really waiting for the draw to make my final picks.
Honestly, I always feel that the Derby is a crapshoot. With 20 horses in a race, any one of them could get bumped and blocked. And the favorite rarely wins. I think there are quite a few talented horses in the race this year but again it’s a crapshoot. 
Shammy Davis, What criteria and numbers do you use to come up with your preferences? They are very nearly the opposite of what all the odds makers are saying.
Have you posted them on Thoroughbred Champions? I would love to read the reactions from the guys over there.
Decades before being stabled at Pimlico the Preakness was always my favorite of the three. To me all the Derby does is tell us who to root for in the Preakness enroute to a possible TC. I just hope this deep field doesn’t knock each other out setting it up for a horse with no shot in a race with a normal size field.
[QUOTE=Laurierace;8128112]
I just hope this deep field doesn’t knock each other out setting it up for a horse with no shot in a race with a normal size field.[/QUOTE]
That’s my fear! Especially since many of the favorites tend to win with similar running styles. They’re not all going to be able to get the position they want/need.
Tonight’s PP draw is going to factor heavily into my handicapping-- maybe even moreso than it has in other years.
[QUOTE=Laurierace;8128112]
Decades before being stabled at Pimlico the Preakness was always my favorite of the three. To me all the Derby does is tell us who to root for in the Preakness enroute to a possible TC. I just hope this deep field doesn’t knock each other out setting it up for a horse with no shot in a race with a normal size field.[/QUOTE]
The Preakness has always been my favorite as well. I’ve never been to Pimlico, but everyone who has says it’s a nice place. I have been the Churchill and honestly it is not that great of track (just my opinion of course, not even worth $0.02). Pimlico always looks stunning on TV.
I think the Preakness is far more indicative of who the “best” horse is than the KY Derby.
Dortmund, Carpe Diem, American Pharoah, then Frosted, Mubtaahji, Materiality. Dortmund may be the ugliest Thoroughbred I’ve seen in a long, long, time, but barring trip problems I think he’s most likely to be as good or better than he looks while AP is most likely not as good as he looks. (Would be different top six if our boy was going, and there was a reasonable shot he’d draw in, but he’s out with a bone bruise until further notice. 
)
[QUOTE=Angelico;8128373]
The Preakness has always been my favorite as well. I’ve never been to Pimlico, but everyone who has says it’s a nice place. I have been the Churchill and honestly it is not that great of track (just my opinion of course, not even worth $0.02). Pimlico always looks stunning on TV.[/QUOTE]
Heh. Pimlico (fan perspective) is run down in a lot of ways but I always love going there. They really do pretty it up for Preakness, but I like regular racing days better.
I think the people make that track, though, I always meet interesting people and have a good time there. Always found the hospitality to be wonderful
With a lot of the Derby horses, being able to get the 1 1/4 miles is a big question mark. I don’t think AP and Dortmund will have a problem with it (because of their pedigrees and running styles).
The post position draw is on TV tonight from 5:30 - 6:00 eastern time. NBC Sports Network.
Why won’t the powers that be limit the Kentucky Derby to a smaller field - like 12 or even 15? It seems with such a large field it is less a test of talent than luck. There always seem to be at least 4 or 5 horses who are totally outclassed. Wouldn’t it make the Derby safer and a better litmus test if the field were smaller?
[QUOTE=ridingagain;8128752]
Why won’t the powers that be limit the Kentucky Derby to a smaller field - like 12 or even 15? It seems with such a large field it is less a test of talent than luck. There always seem to be at least 4 or 5 horses who are totally outclassed. Wouldn’t it make the Derby safer and a better litmus test if the field were smaller?[/QUOTE]
Money! $25K entry fee and a $25K start fee to run in the Kentucky Derby… and people are thrilled to have the opportunity to pay it, even if the horse has zero chance.
It wasn’t until last night that I realized Dortmund is by Big Brown. I have been impressed by Dortmund, even though his Santa Anita Derby win was over a shorter distance than the Derby.
I seem to remember, following Big Brown’s Derby win, even before he was retired, a lot of discussion about his legs and that he would not have been sound for a long racing career, or longer distances, and a lot of snide comments about what sort of sire he would make as there was concern about his passing on his soundness problems.
Now I see Dortmund looking good for the Derby.
I just wonder what racing people are saying these days about Big Brown as a sire, and particularly as the sire of Dortmund. Obviously I don’t keep up with racing the way some people here do. I’m not trying to start a train wreck, I’m just basically wondering what the current opinions of Big Brown are. After all, it’s been seven whole years! 
[QUOTE=ridingagain;8128752]
Why won’t the powers that be limit the Kentucky Derby to a smaller field - like 12 or even 15? It seems with such a large field it is less a test of talent than luck. There always seem to be at least 4 or 5 horses who are totally outclassed. Wouldn’t it make the Derby safer and a better litmus test if the field were smaller?[/QUOTE]
This had been a “mantra” for years. And IMO it just doesn’t hold water. Since 1960 853 horses have run in the KY Derby, average field size, 15.5.
24 horses have won the Derby and 2 other “legs” of the Triple Crown. Close to 1 horse every other year.
IMO Great horses over come just about everything thrown at them. They have tactical speed, presence of mind and the “will to win”.
Since 1999 just about every year there has been 20 starters, and 7 horses have won the first 2 legs.
Though it is a little bit like comparing apples to oranges, the field sizes of top stakes races in Europe can be considerably larger than 20 horses.
3 “maidens” have won the Derby.
Triple Crown Winners of the 70’s
Secretariat 13 horses started
Seattle Slew 15
Affirmed 11
In 1923, 24 started, 1924-20, 1925-25, 1928-22, 1929-26, 1932-20, 1933-22
Decade Starters Years Avg. Field
2010-14 97 5 19.4
2000-09 187 10 18.7
1990-99 167 10 16.7
1980-89 171 10 17.1
1970-79 149 10 14.9
1960-69 126 10 12.6
1950-59 145 10 14.5
1940-49 126 10 12.6
1930-29 143 10 14.3
1920-29 170 10 17.0
1910-19 96 10 9.6
1900-09 60 10 6.0
1890-99 51 10 5.1
1880-89 83 10 8.3
1875-79 55 5 11.0
A lot of Derby Sats and other tid-bits can be found here
We’ve never really seen American Pharoah asked to run. Every race he just pricks his ears and lopes to the finish line. If he breaks well I think we are in for a real treat. He has a lot of stamina
<<Dortmund may be the ugliest Thoroughbred I’ve seen in a long, long, time>>
Really?? I think he’s lovely, and very well put together.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as they say.
AP drew post position 18. I wonder how that will affect him.
[QUOTE=Kim;8130034]
<<Dortmund may be the ugliest Thoroughbred I’ve seen in a long, long, time>>
Really?? I think he’s lovely, and very well put together.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as they say.[/QUOTE]
I was a bit shocked by that statement. He may be a little on the plain side for some, but I think he is gorgeous in a ruggedly handsome way! And I also like that bigger head with large ears.
[QUOTE=Kim;8130034]
<<Dortmund may be the ugliest Thoroughbred I’ve seen in a long, long, time>>
Really?? I think he’s lovely, and very well put together.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as they say.[/QUOTE]
Agree, I love the “rugged” look. I prefer a plain, unmarked chestnut to flashier, “chromier” horses. To each his own.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
