TGJB,
well, len has not responded, i guess he feels he has nothing to prove to me. i am disappointed about that. i am also disappointed that you feel you have no obligation to prove to me the validity of your longer distance route #\'s. round table ran 1:47.1 at Kee back in 1957, northern dancer ran his derby in about 2:00 flat back in 1964, secretariat ran his derby in 1:59 and change back in 1973, and spectacular bid ran 10f in 1:57 and change in 1980 (BTW bid set six track records at seven different tracks, some still alive today), and these horses are much, much slower than today\'s horse? and you give no reason whatsoever why their times were equal to, in some case much faster than today\'s horses? i am disappointed that len did not respond, because there are legitimate issues at hand here, and i also am disappointed that you said \"michael, i have nothing to prove to you\" when i brought up this legitimate issue about your figs. i will still purchase both products however, as i am sure that my ROI goes up when i utilize one of the two, and that is the bottome line.
Michael,
Jerry has given us \"his\" view on those faster times on many occasions. He believes that track surfaces were faster back in the days of Bid, Secretariat etc... If that is true, then horses slightly inferior to today\'s best could have put up some spectacular times without being as good as today\'s horses. You can either agree, not agree, or agree but to a lesser extent.
\"he believes\" ? who cares? he can give no proof that every track in the country is much slower that it used to be. and, TGJB, before you start with the focus BS, your focus on ground loss in c\'stoppers BC #, when the obvious issue here was the start, was probably the biggest lack of focus ever seen on this board...... bottom line, i will not get answers from either side.
and just to clarify my position (given on a previous post), i think c\'stopper\'s head was there with the rest of them when the gates opened. it looks to me like day then yanks the horse back a bit immediately, then starts nudging him a bit. i would like to know from len why that is considered a \"poor start\" in Sheets methodology, but i will not get an answer.
Post Edited (12-13-04 16:29)
Well thats what they wrote it as, a bad start. They had a s next to the number and that would mess with the numbers a bit.
kev,
yea, we finally got the \"focus\" clear, but i need more answers. the horse was five lengths back within a few seconds, but that does explain everything. if a horse suddenly drops back five lengths during the middle of the race, there is no adjustment to the #.
Michael D, we need a clearer definition of an 's\' & \'S\' if Ragozin is attempting to quantify all this. I'm assuming they would be noting where the horses are at the point when the teletimer beam is tripped. Just M.O. but if you watch the start of the BC sprint again hit the pause button when the main pack reach the 6f pole and CS is approx one length behind when the actual timing of the race begins before dropping further back. A couple other horses broke even more tardy then CS if the location of the starting beam is the demarcation point.
thomas,
thanks for the info......
\"a couple other horses broke even more tardy than CS if the location of the starting beam is the demarcation point.\"
the screen i am watching this from is tiny, but are you sure about that? a horse way on inside clearly hit the pole behind the rest, but from the angle we get, it looks very tough to tell. where are you getting the tape from? you might be getting a better view.
Michael,
Don\'t you find it frustrating that Len won\'t answer your question? It does support Jerry\'s view that Rags\' customers don\'t ask the hard questions of Len and if they do, they don\'t get answers.
I have to be honest, at $25 a pop, 20 times a month, I want an occasional answer to valid questions.
Just one quick point if I may. When Clock Stopper ran in the Vanderbilt against Speightstown at Saratoga I caught him 2 lengths slow away from the gate and Logic Dictates had him \'SG3 as always\' (self explanatory.) I also had him slow into stride in the Defrancis and while he broke with the field in the BC he was slow away (as always) and taken in hand and not rushed (as always.) I guess my point is, what\'s the point? He\'s always slow into stride and allowed to relax - if you start building that into the number where does it end? I\'d rather know what he ran and then if he had actual trouble at the gate, make a notation. If he\'s always slow, don\'t bother - it won\'t help me next time - or as Nick does - as always.
jim,
well, i have already said twice on just this one string that i am disappointed that i have not received an answer. bottom line is that i would like more info on the BC sprint figs, but i judge the ultimate quality of these products on whether or not i cash at the windows. i had a pretty good summer and fall at the windows using len\'s #\'s (also on pre-race posts). i have also had some success using TG, and i think these two are by far the best products out there.
Post Edited (12-13-04 20:35)
Michael, watching the replay via MSNBC web site on a fairly large LCD flat screen monitor. The horse you were referring to was Bwana Charlie who clearly broke slower then C.S. again using the 6f pole as the point of reference, PT's Grey Eagle appears on even terms with C.S. and even Speightstown broke about ½ to ¾ of a length slow behind the main pack. What I find puzzling is not so much why Ragozin decided to give C.S. an 's' but why Bwana Charlie wasn't noted the same?
All right, I\'m back after a couple of days away. Haven\'t read all the posts on both boards, but let me make something clear, again:
Unless there has been a total reversal of Ragozin\'s policy, the \"off poorly\" only is used when a horse LEAVES THE GATE after the rest of the horses. It has nothing to do with dropping back, running slowly, or where the horse was at the beam. The theory is that while running, energy saved is energy that can be used later, but spotting lengths from a standing start can\'t be made up. You can argue with the theory, or not-- but the fact is that IF they adjusted CS\' figure for a slow start, it was an error, ON THEIR METHODOLOGY, resulting in a figure that was off by 1 1/2 points. (And I am not convinced that is the reason for the error-- I think they may have blown the ground. Remember, they got another one wrong in the same race, by quite a bit).
If you watch the replay, you will see that CS left with the field, ran with it for a few strides, then dropped (or was taken) back. By no ones definition does this get credited in the figure.
JB,
I think you are overstepping a bit when it comes to Clockstopper.
You can\'t both disagree with their methodology and define their methodology on something as subjective as starts.
I understand that when you were there they were doing something that isn\'t consistent with this figure, but I think you should limit your case to a disagreement over methdology since we do not know what their thinking was in this case.
CH-- I know damn well what their methodology is. I was there for 9 years, used their data more successfully than anyone else to that point, and have a guy working for me who worked for them for 11 years (and made figures), starting after I left. I had lots of discussions with Ragozin about methodology when I was there, and went on record disagreeing with him a lot-- but not about this (and by the way, my guess is that if someone went through Ragozin\'s book they could find something on \"off poorly\"). It would be an enormous shift if they started doing things differently-- it\'s a 100-1 shot.
They blew this one way or the other, plain and simple.
Postscript-- I just noticed the post on the Ragozin board where Eric says they adjusted Clock Stopper\'s figure for the \"slow start\". I would urge everyone who hasn\'t already done so to take a look at the video of that race for themselves. I would also urge someone to ask Eric (or anyone else there) under what circumstances they adjust for OP\'s, and if he says what I have said he will, how they figure that horse was off slow at all, let alone 1 1/2 points worth.
Just think about how many of these \"off slow\" horses come up every day around the country, and how much room for error this is creating in Ragozin figures because of that alone.
>CH-- I know damn well what their methodology is. I was there for 9 years,>
I know that you know what their methdology \"was\".
However, you cannot read the mind of the person that decided to put an \"off slow\" on Clockstopper\'s sheet. It\'s there and it probably accounts for the figure difference.
You can say it doesn\'t belong there because CS wasn\'t off slowly. He was sluggish out of the gate.
You can say it is not consistent with their \"formerly known\" methdology for dealing with sluggish gate horses.
I also don\'t know if anyone has examined the head on shot to see if there was anything noteworthy about the way the horses to his left and right left the gate that impacted him. Then it would be appropriate even if not noticeable from the side view.
CH-- the point is, if they have changed their methodology, let them say so. If they have not, they have an error, based on their own (and my) approach-- they are giving a horse numerical credit for something that happened DURING THE RUNNING of the race.
I have now watched that replay 5 times. The horse did NOT leave the gate sluggishly. He RAN sluggishly, starting about 4-5 jumps AFTER he left the gate, or was taken back by Day at that point. If he had trouble at that point he should possibly get a trouble notation-- but there is absolutely no rationale for altering the figure, unless Ragozin has departed for territory uncharted, at least for him. If that is so, let them say so, and we\'ll discuss that.
Meanwhile, the focus on this one has caused everyone to lose sight of the fact that they have other problems with that race, and with the Derby.
>Meanwhile, the focus on this one has caused everyone to lose sight of the fact that they have other problems with that race, and with the Derby.<
Yes. I think this is the much more important point because you aren\'t going to get anything out of them regarding why they gave CS an off slow.
CH-- I know.
The reality is, I knew it going in. I make the points to make it clear that they have made the errors, and won\'t address them-- that\'s why I try to find examples that anyone with access to charts and replays can see and understand, even if they don\'t know anything about figure making. Touch Of The Blues, the Derby, BC Sprint-- it\'s obvious to anyone who looks at it.
There are some deluded souls over there who don\'t realize (as Brando as Terry Malloy said in \"On The Waterfront\"), \"I was rattin\' on myself all those years\". (Tom, you should have a field day with that). They somehow think that an attack on an outfit\'s incompetency is an attack on them, even though they are PAYING a BUSINESS for the data, and it is in their interest for the errors to be caught and fixed, no matter how that happens.
Which is not why I do it, of course. It is to show those that are not hopelessly invested psychologically that their interests are better served elsewhere. And those not invested are not the ones posting there, and often do switch.
By the way-- speaking of Tom, just a point in passing. While lots of others on that board model themselves after ostriches, he (Janis, Alydar etc.) does not-- he has undoubtedly looked at that replay as many times as I have, and he has a burning animosity towards me. In case you guys on the Rag board can\'t figure this stuff out for yourselves, he would be going after me bigtime if there was any chance I got it wrong.
JB,
I just visited the Rag board again after a few days and see that at least one person was busy attacking the messenger (me) instead of the message. (not that you didn\'t do that when I first came around) :-)
In any event, it\'s clear I am not going to get a response other than \"there was no beaten lengths error\".
I\'m sure I\'ve gotten you pissed off at least a few times, but at least you are willing to discuss your ideas, figures, etc... with people when they disagree.
CH-- I think if you go back and find those early posts you will find that I was attacking your arguments. I have very, very seldom engaged in ad hominem attacks here, and then only when provoked to an extreme by like behavior-- never in response to an argument someone made.
JB,
I don\'t even remember. We just got off on the wrong foot.
By the way, regarding Alydar\'s post on the other board-- revisionist history aside, there is no reason he can\'t ask questions himself, on their site. I do it here, about them. I might answer him, I might not, depending on whether or not it is his usual nonsense (he has been very bad boy), and depending on whether the issues have any significance (the hilarious posts about 1/4 point rounding come to mind), but it\'s not like he doesn\'t have a forum. He\'s just not going to get to use this one.
Which of the regular posters on the Rags board are employees (or vested interest) and which are just customers?
JJ is not an employee, Marc is not, Eric is, I assume the others are not and don\'t care if they are-- there arguments stand on their own legs, or don\'t.
There are all kinds of vested interests, and not all of them are financial.