THOUGHTS ABOUT AMERICAN PHAROAH

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

You know, "Grade I" is meaningless. That's just a designation based on past races.

She beat an actual field of horses. They were either good or they weren't. Some Grade III fields are better than other Grade I fields.

If you want to make an argument that Macho Again, the actual horse she beat, was any good, make it. In fact, he wasn't.

Meanwhile, the fields that Zenyatta beat in her two BC Classics were LOADED with good horses.

(EDIT: It occurs to me that Very Subtle, a 3 year old filly, won the 1987 Breeders' Cup Sprint over a far better field than Rachel's Woodward, including several Grade I winners (Groovy, Pine Tree Lane, Zany Tactics). And yet nobody thinks Very Subtle was an all-time great horse. And Miesque, who I guess at least gets rated a very good horse, also won a Breeders Cup race on the same card as a 3 year old filly beating older horses. So this allegedly great achievement actually happened twice ON THE SAME CARD!)

Dirt routes, Grade 1 races. We'll wait for the list. But again, these are all arguments you've lost many times already in various threads. Right around the time you start spouting "East Coast bias" then it's clear you have no logic to support your claims. It's the old "it's an important race until a horse I don't like wins it, then it's no longer important". It's just as brilliant as "it was a strong field until a horse I didn't like it beat it, then it was no longer a strong field". Both works of genius logic that you love to use on this site.

You're the same guy who said the NFL is struggling though, so I take your words with a pound of salt. But that's probably my East Coast bias talking, and if I lived in CA you'd seem intelligent.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by castaway01

You're the same guy who said the NFL is struggling though, so I take your words with a pound of salt. But that's probably my East Coast bias talking, and if I lived in CA you'd seem intelligent.

I live in the Midwest, and he sure seems like an intelligent guy to me...at least MOST of the time. Are you implying that the "East/West bias" is purely a "mental construct"...and not an actual occurrence?

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

Also, looking forward to meeting you Class. When are you coming to the BIG A?

Unquestionably for the Cigar Mile, but maybe before then. I'm relaxing a little post Breeder's Cup. I'm a little burnt out.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by castaway01

Dirt routes, Grade 1 races. We'll wait for the list. But again, these are all arguments you've lost many times already in various threads. Right around the time you start spouting "East Coast bias" then it's clear you have no logic to support your claims. It's the old "it's an important race until a horse I don't like wins it, then it's no longer important". It's just as brilliant as "it was a strong field until a horse I didn't like it beat it, then it was no longer a strong field". Both works of genius logic that you love to use on this site.

You're the same guy who said the NFL is struggling though, so I take your words with a pound of salt. But that's probably my East Coast bias talking, and if I lived in CA you'd seem intelligent.

1. You moved the goalposts. Your original statement was that it was extremely rare for any 3 year old filly to win a Grade I race against older horses. When I pointed out it literally happened twice on the same race card, you then changed it to route races on the dirt.

I mean, that's not relevant, is it. Is it so much easier to do what Miesque did than what Rachel Alexandra did? I'll give you a hint-- the field Miesque beat was loaded with major stakes winners in the US and Europe. Rachel's field wasn't. Do the actual fields of races matter to you, or do you just say "Grade I" and assume the race is good?

2. If it will make you happy, no, I'm not aware of 3 year old fillies winning a handicap division dirt route race at a major racetrack like Rachel did. But I'm also not aware of very many fillies who have even been entered in one either. And again, Rachel beat a bunch of plugs, so it wasn't that impressive a performance.

3. I never said the NFL is struggling. I did say that the NFL doesn't have nearly the popularity now that it did in the 1960's and 1970's. I suggest you look at the RATINGS of Monday Night Football in the 1970's if you have any doubt about this-- the percentage of Americans who watched the NFL (other than the Super Bowl) back then was much higher than it is now.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

A lot of "New York, east-coast biased sonofaguns" don't agree with you when it comes to AP. How does that fit into your "New York, east-coast biased" paradigm vis-a-vis Zenyatta?

Answer? It doesn't.

I don't make any claim about American Pharoah having anything to do with east coast bias.

But the elevation of the Woodward Stakes above the Breeders Cup Classic when Zenyatta beat a far better field than Rachel did was one of the great examples of east coast bias in history.

[PaceAdvantage]

That was so yesterday's news...if what you say is true, expect American Pharoah to somehow be disqualified from participating in the 2015 Eclipse Awards...

[ronsmac]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

1. You moved the goalposts. Your original statement was that it was extremely rare for any 3 year old filly to win a Grade I race against older horses. When I pointed out it literally happened twice on the same race card, you then changed it to route races on the dirt.

I mean, that's not relevant, is it. Is it so much easier to do what Miesque did than what Rachel Alexandra did? I'll give you a hint-- the field Miesque beat was loaded with major stakes winners in the US and Europe. Rachel's field wasn't. Do the actual fields of races matter to you, or do you just say "Grade I" and assume the race is good?

2. If it will make you happy, no, I'm not aware of 3 year old fillies winning a handicap division dirt route race at a major racetrack like Rachel did. But I'm also not aware of very many fillies who have even been entered in one either. And again, Rachel beat a bunch of plugs, so it wasn't that impressive a performance.

3. I never said the NFL is struggling. I did say that the NFL doesn't have nearly the popularity now that it did in the 1960's and 1970's. I suggest you look at the RATINGS of Monday Night Football in the 1970's if you have any doubt about this-- the percentage of Americans who watched the NFL (other than the Super Bowl) back then was much higher than it is now.

There was only 4 channels in my area in the 70s unless you were lucky enough to pick up D.C. stations. So the ratings for every show was higher in the70s.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by ronsmac

There was only 4 channels in my area in the 70s unless you were lucky enough to pick up D.C. stations. So the ratings for every show was higher in the70s.

I quite agree.

But that's my point. One of the reasons why sports had a more universal penetration in the 1970's is because there were fewer channels. (FWIW, we had more than 4 in Southern California.)

The Monday Night Football game in the 1970's was common currency. If you went to work or school, 30 percent of the people would have seen it. That's no longer true. Sports still make a ton of money, but they make it from a smaller segment of the population.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

That was so yesterday's news...if what you say is true, expect American Pharoah to somehow be disqualified from participating in the 2015 Eclipse Awards...

Why do you think that a horse who had every one of his starts this year at East Coast or Southern tracks says anything about east coast bias?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I quite agree.

But that's my point. One of the reasons why sports had a more universal penetration in the 1970's is because there were fewer channels. (FWIW, we had more than 4 in Southern California.)

The Monday Night Football game in the 1970's was common currency. If you went to work or school, 30 percent of the people would have seen it. That's no longer true. Sports still make a ton of money, but they make it from a smaller segment of the population.

Is it your contention that fewer people watch football today than they did in the 70s?

[cj]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Why do you think that a horse who had every one of his starts this year at East Coast or Southern tracks says anything about east coast bias?

We can't help it if the trainers knows where the best races are!

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Unquestionably for the Cigar Mile, but maybe before then. I'm relaxing a little post Breeder's Cup. I'm a little burnt out.

Ironically, which never happened in years past, me too. I find the work (replays, chart checking blah blah blah) to be dragging a bit.

I was on track Sat and Sun, hated both cards and just sat there and took notes all day. Very few minor action bets.

Yes, let me know when you're stopping by.

[rastajenk]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I did say that the NFL doesn't have nearly the popularity now that it did in the 1960's and 1970's.

Wow, just wow. I have never seen or heard anyone state that with a straight face before.

ESPN daily NFL shows
3-hour pre-game shows, 90-minute post-game shows
The freakin' NFL Network
Thursday night football
Draft Kings, Fan Duel, office pools
Draft combines, mock drafts, draft gurus
New billion dollar stadiums

None of those would have happened if the NFL was bleeding popularity. Back then, there was a football season, and the off-season. Now, the entire calendar year is some kind of football season.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Is it your contention that fewer people watch football today than they did in the 70s?

It is my contention that A LOWER PERCENTAGE OF THE PUBLIC WATCHES FOOTBALL (other than the Super Bowl), and that giving the NFL, or any sport, credit for population increases is stupid. If you have a lower percentage, you are less popular, period.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by rastajenk

Wow, just wow. I have never seen or heard anyone state that with a straight face before.

ESPN daily NFL shows
3-hour pre-game shows, 90-minute post-game shows
The freakin' NFL Network
Thursday night football
Draft Kings, Fan Duel, office pools
Draft combines, mock drafts, draft gurus
New billion dollar stadiums

None of those would have happened if the NFL was bleeding popularity. Back then, there was a football season, and the off-season. Now, the entire calendar year is some kind of football season.

1. Most of that stuff is watched only by football freaks. Network television is actually a lot, lot, lot more important than any cable channel. Probably 50 times as many people watch a network show than watch any show other than a live football game on the NFL Network.

2. Draft Kings is just an indicator of the spread of legal gambling and the exemption for fantasy football. Every office had a football card passed around in the 1960's and 1970's. There was TONS of illegal gambling on football.

3. Sports stadiums may cost more now, there was a whole construction boom in the 1960's and 1970's-- more than 1/2 the NFL got new stadiums during that period. That is not new either.

EDIT: Again, what you are missing is that there's a whole bunch more money, but it is being generated from a smaller percentage of the population. The NFL and other people have figured out various ways to get football fanatics to spend more money on the sport. And more power to them! But that's not the same as having 30 percent of the adults in the country watch a football game every week, which is what used to happen. It makes more money, but it's also less popular (unless, as I said, you give the NFL credit for increasing the population, which is totally stupid).

SECOND EDIT: To give you an idea of how much of a disparity we are talking about, the 1985 Bears-Dolphins game got a 29.6 rating on Monday Night Football, meaning 29.6 percent of all television sets were turned on and turned to ABC for that game.

The highest rating so far this season was a Sunday night Patriots-Colts game, which got a 14.6.

It's a really huge drop.