|
By:
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the argument. I thought a 2 1/2 miler would be a horse previously thought to have an optimum trip of 2 1/2 miles.
|
|
By:
forget one hasnt won neither do 4 mile plodders,the argument goes that you have a better chance of winning with a 2.5 miler with some tactical speed ,than backing some slow old boat who the theory goes they,ll run on at the end,but they go to quick and plodders lose interest out the back avoiding fallers and pull ups,before their stamin has a chance to kick in,as neither tends to win depends what run style you want for your money
|
|
By:
You need a 2 and a half mile horse to win the natioal. Fred Rimel claimed that after his Gay Trip won, he later retracted that. I went for Calgari Bay, has all the creds, Trainer cant buy a winner, said he wont stay, jockey been having a nightmare of a season, cant get a ride let alone a winner, dont beleave he has ridden in the race, got a saver kick in the Ed's went a circuit to soon a few weeks ago at Folkstone, Calgari Bay at times has looked a bit of thinker or looks afterhimself in his races...dont mind that for a Natonal horse, so when you add all that up he must be a penalty kick. i think he will stay, jumps like a buck, ran a cracker last time at Cheltenham (2nd), stayed on well, came from along way back that day, and he's a fresh horse, and i like his jockey. took 40s.
|
|
By:
It's always been rubbish. Just because sometimes a 2.5 miler wins it doesn't stop it being rubbish.
|
|
By:
The funniest thread on Betfair in years !!!! Fools and their money .....
|
|
By:
The last two silly "one liners" add nothing to this excellent debate.
|
|
By:
you def need a horse thats strong over 2.5- ideally then even stronger for another couple of miles
|
|
By:
The GN is the ultimate stayers race won by specialist out and out STAYERS. Try Bingo numb head - you might just get the hang of that ...
|
|
By:
Lord - Did you read the whole thread before posting? Did you have any view on the views put forward or were you content to rely on your dismissive one-liner.
You will see from the above that I do not subscribe to the preposition as posted originally, but I do recognise that there is some merit in the underlying argument. Re your 22.41 post, two questions, why resort to insults?, and why make a vaguely ridiculous assertion to back up your earlier and cursory assessment of the argument. |
|
By:
Pompous with it ...
|
|
By:
blimey- i'm new to this posting lark - so much anger in the room. its only a horse race guys-
|
|
By:
lord - I am ok with pompous!. Any meaningful response or was that it?
|
|
By:
Show me a meaningful thread first ...
|
|
By:
So you're ok with pompous too!! Imo this thread is (was) meaningful, balanced and interesting, and deserved much better than your dismissive post of 22.21.
|
|
By:
You moaned about my post too but it summed up the situation perfectly.
|