Yes, that's my point exactly... But I don't see how Good Magic is apples to oranges - I'm NOT comparing him to West Coast currently coming into the Classic, maybe you're misinterpreting my posts because you're spending time defending West Coast when I am NOT trying to build a case against him or knock him down or saying he won't perform well here. Far from it. I am just expressing skepticism about his ML odds.Curtis wrote: ↑Tue Oct 30, 2018 5:53 pmMy point is West Coast is working well in context to West Coast. He’s the type of horse, in my opinion, who cannot be worked up to a big race off of a long layoff. The race he ran gave him fitness—you could see he was short in the Awesone Again—and now he looks more awake and like the horse he was when he was on a regular race pattern. Good Magic is apples and oranges. Although people didn’t want to see it, he was used down the stretch in the Haskell until the last few yards. He was a bounce candidate in the Travers, didn’t have an optimal trip and may have had an issue begin to surface since he was retired soon after. Works are very specific to a given horse. They’re not all Unique Bella who took the bit and told the rider to hang on tight. Some of the things seen are subtle. I think West Coast is working up to a race well for West Coast and if he can run at or near his best, he’ll be tough, he’s a 10f horse and I don’t know I can say that about all the rest.Treve wrote: ↑Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:14 pmThat's my point exactly. Arrogate was working faster than he had in the past so people were saying he was working well when visibly it wasn't the case to anyone looking. If someone says West Coast is usually disinterested (as Arrogate was) but is now suddenly working "lights out" that could be bad or good, and I haven't seen the horse myself so I immediately get skeptical when someone brings up "people are saying he's working well" (not even saying they've seen those works themselves but rather basing their opinion on hearsay). What I like to see personally are horses with good form being consistent with the way they work. Change usually means something but doesn't always mean it is good.Curtis wrote: ↑Tue Oct 30, 2018 1:11 pmMike Smith did choose McKinzie for what that’s worth. I think people need to be careful with the “All Baffert horses work well” talk. It has to be taken in the context of the horse. A horse can work fast but not well. A lot of folks—Baffert included—talked themselves into Arrogate working well into last year’s BC. He wasn’t, he was working fast enough but something just didn’t look right and he ran to it. I do think both his horses are coming up to the race well, I prefer West Coast out of the two but we’ll see.
People were saying Good Magic was training like a beast before the Travers, too.
My point of contention is that workouts aren't the be all end all, and when people "say" a horse is "working well" or "training awesome" I take it with a grain of salt unless I've seen it myself, and more importantly just because a horse is "working well" (or people are saying it is) doesn't automatically warrant betting favouritism, since as we have seen in both the case of Arrogate and Good Magic, just because people "say" a horse is working well, doesn't mean the horse actually is. (As a matter of fact if I was comparing Good Magic to anything, it was the example you laid out with Arrogate: i.e. just because people "say" a horse is working well, doesn't necessarily mean they actually are)
My point is... rely on what you see, not on what you hear (unless what you're listening to is hoofbeats, heartbeats or snorts!)