Question to long time Thorograph pattern and condition analysts: Do you think Accelerate\'s performance in the Awesome Again was the result of a deep tiring track and regression from his big effort/low TG fig in the Pacific Classic OR an older horse with declining form after a big effort (during a time of the year that often shows declining form in horses)?
You\'ll get 3-1 in the Classic to find out,assuming he makes the gate.
IMO, not worth the trouble of finding out.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
dsipes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Question to long time Thorograph pattern and
> condition analysts: Do you think Accelerate\'s
> performance in the Awesome Again was the result of
> a deep tiring track and regression from his big
> effort/low TG fig in the Pacific Classic OR an
> older horse with declining form after a big effort
> (during a time of the year that often shows
> declining form in horses)?
Let this \"pattern and condition analyst\" emeritus answer a question with a
question: Is it possible that a runner that regresses in a final prep before
the BC does so because (s)he is not 100% for the prep (the \"engineered bounce\")?
Another question (you are an attorney so I am sure you can appreciate the
Socratic Method): With regards to Bill Mott\'s Channel Maker, winner of the Joe
Hirsch-- would you like him more in the BC Turf if his Joe Hirsch # was a new
top, or a slight regression from his two Spa races? (Certainly soft turf seems
to suit CM just fine).
Disclaimer: I did not watch the Accelerate race.
I did watch the JCGC and have wondered throughout the week what result if
Discreet Collmus (too busy screaming to get the horse\'s name right in a short
field in one of the year\'s big races) had been trained throughout his career by
Brown or Baffert or Brad Cox? Hard to tell because these three rarely get the
chance to train $10,000 yearlings?
Richie B.... Regarding your question if it\'s possible to regress in prep before BC.....I only know what I read about sheet analysis. It\'s my understanding that if the form of a horse is good before the one unusually \"off\" regression, the general rule is to forgive the horse for that off race. Worth noting that 5yo\'s and older have done horribly in the Classic since 1997.
Regarding Channel Maker, going back to 2000, my review of all the sheets in the archives for the winners and most of the major contenders in the BC TURF who lost by half length or less revealed that pairing a fig in the last prep or progressing by up to 3 points has produced the most winners and close finishers since 2000. Even a regression by no more than 2 pts is acceptable. I\'m more of a novice however, so I can only share what I\'ve seen by past sheets for the BC Turf winners and close finishers.
To quote a very smart (sometimes) guy who does the TG BC Seminar, it\'s the end of a long year. If a horse looks like he might be ready to tail off, he probably is.
Someone with too much time on his hands might want to go through past seminars to track the horses I\'ve said that about, and how they did. Caveat-- some (most? all?) also were dealing with an East/West ship).
We might try a few new studies this year...
Accelerate did regress badly in one speed figure publication but only regressed
3 3/4 on another sheet publication, the later telling me the Pacific Classic didn\'t take that much out of him. But, I have heard TGJB say in previous seminars that those looking like they\'re tailing off this time of the year probably are and he\'s been right a lot of times. Just curious. Probably going to be a spread race for me in my horizontal bets anyway.