Jerry,
For me, the reason I buy the T-Graph figures now, is I like the component of ground loss incorporated into the figures. I understand that you have also built weight carried into the figure. I have heard Beyer and a few others argue about weight and the effect or lack of effect it has on horses and while I tend to agree with you, I would think this is a more debatable point than ground loss.
It seems that ground loss is just a mathematical calculation and there should be no debate as to whether it is important or not. The only debate that people can make is if/when an outside bias at a track exists, how much does this mitigate the ground loss and how do you weigh that.
However, assuming no bias, what is the argument against incorporating ground loss into figures? (I think \"no bias\" is the case for the majority of racing days as personally I think track bias is the most over-diagnosed thing in the game and the guys on TV make it worse).
I kknow this question should go to Beyer and not Jerry, since Jerry is the who DOES incorporate it into the figure, but I know of no message board for Beyer, and I am guessing that at some point in some public forum, Jerry and Andy have probably debated this point.
Jerry, do you know what the argument \"against\" ground loss is?
I am very curious, especially in light of all the ground lost by Bandini and the very low beyer figure given the horse in the Bluegrass (relative to his T-Graph figure)
Thanks
Jim
Jimbo,
If you think the final times of individual horses are not influenced by things like the pace of the race, position, bias, and individual characteristics like acceleration, stamina, preference for running inside or outside horses etc... then ground loss is a purely mathematical calculation.
I think Beyer argues that not all \"ground loss is equal\".
The most obvious issue is bias.
I believe he also thinks you have to evaluate how hard the horse was working on the turn when wide to keep or improve his position.
He also thinks that the same horses tend to always lose ground because of running style. Some actually prefer being outside etc...
So he prefers to have a pure speed figure with ground loss and other trip notes as a seperate subjective item to evaluate on an individual basis.
At least that\'s my understanding of what he has said.
Post Edited (04-26-05 13:36)
CH,
Some of what you said doesn\'t make sense to me.
I understand that track bias can be a factor that affects ground loss. I won\'t argue this.
But how does \"pace\" affect ground loss? Beyer also doesn\'t use \"pace\" figures, so I doubt that explains why he doesn\'t use ground loss.
How does acceleration affect ground loss? It can help you avoid ground loss if you have it or make you more susceptible to it,if you don\'t, but either way the ground loss is the ground loss.
Same for stamina? Affecting ground loss? What, the more stamina a horse has, the less the ground less matters? I don\'t buy that at all. If he has stamina, he might be less tired when he reaches the finish line, but if he lost 20 feet on the turn, he lost 20 feet on the turn.
Don\'t know what you mean by \'position\'.
I guess I can buy that some horses are more comfortable outside in the clear.
But thanks for trying.
Jim
Jimbo,
I\'m not sure Beyer is \"making an argument against incorporating ground loss into figures?\" as per your original post. He just makes figures without them. His figures have value for what they measure. I think what Jerry tries to do is go the \"extra mile\" to add the ground loss to the rest of what Beyer is doing (clock/variant). Beyer and others \"add in\" other ingredients like pace or wide or troubled trips as they see fit, much like the readers of this board \"add in\" whatever to the TG numbers they get!
Don\'t overlook how time consuming and labor intensive measuring ground loss is. You can do what Beyer does alone at your desk. Not to say it\'s not time consuming or difficult, but there\'s no comparison to the time and effort required to generate TG-type figs by getting the ground for every horse. In order to do the TG thing, you need a lot more man hours and observational power (?) get the additional data in.
I think the logistics have as much to do with it as any \"argument\" Beyer would make against ground loss as a meaningful fig component...
HP
I went over the ground loss thing a little at the DRF Expo, not sure whether it made the DVD or not. Basically, the argument (as CH indicated) is usually that other things (better part of the track, clear sailing etc) can sometimes offset ground loss.
So what? If Beyer gives one horse a 90, and another an 80, but the first horse ran on the better part of the track, does he adjust the figures of the two horses? If a horse gets beat 10 lengths, but raced on a worse part of the track, do we not want to know how far he got beat?
You can adjust for all these things as much or as little as you want to. But in the end, you are better off knowing how far a horse travelled, and working from that.
I\'ve done some stuff here about weight before at length. You can probably find a lot by using the search engine creatively, and we definitely did cover that in some depth at the Expo.
The ground loss was definitely included in the Expo. I think there is only one real reason not to include ground loss...the figure maker doesn\'t think it is worth the time to get the value added. Personally, I think anything not readily available to the public is probably worth the money.
Jimbo,
Beyer doesn\'t make pace figures, but he definitely makes subjective evaluations about how the pace impacts races. His last book goes into detail.
The other stuff I was talking about is best demonstrated by 1 extreme example because it\'s WAY too long a conversation to go into detail about and I\'m sure JB doesn\'t want me to go there.
Suppose I am in a race with the best miler in the world. We run togther in an extremely slow pace for 7/8 of mile with me on the outside all the way. Then we sprint home the last 1/8 mile. I\'m not a very good miler, but I can sprint for an 1/8 of mile at a pretty good clip. At the end of the race, the world class miler winds up beating me by less than the amount of ground I lost throughout the race. That means I get a better speed figure than him.
Obviously, giving me credit for ground loss is mathematically correct, but it\'s a gross misunderstanding of which of the two of us is actually better. Both of us had used up very little energy for the first 7/8s of a mile because the pace was so darn slow. So we were both able to sprint to the best of our ability for the last 1/8. The ground loss was a non-factor in the result.
There are other applications like this, but they are few and far between because they are related to extremes and the sometimes unique qualities of individual horses.
Post Edited (04-26-05 18:42)
Ground loss and wide trips is the most overrated handicapping element, and one the general public does not have a good grasp on.
Not all ground loss is equal, I truely believe that. The better a handicapper can understand the different types of ground loss the more he will win, IMHO. Obviously this is contrarian for this site as ground loss of any type is incorporated into the figure in a purely mathamatical sense.
I can not believe that a couple of two year olds, one in the 2 path, one in the 3 path and both hit the line together, then look at the figure and the outside horse gets a better figure, cmon. In my opinion the inside horse, probably a bit intimidated on the inside, ran at least equally as good, and certainly not slower. Or a much the best alw horse loops the field in the clear and wins gets some monster ground loss figure when he had absolutely no trouble.
Now a 25k speed horse at santa anita, breaks a step slow, gets caught 3 wide on the lead first turn, the bids 3 wide second turn and fades to 5th, probably ran a dang good race and is a playback.
wide on a fair track is certainly a disadvantage dont kid yourself. Wide wears down the inner horse at times due to pace issues. If two horses run side by side all around an oval on a fair track the inner horse is always advantaged.
Here\'s the question for you, where\'s your proof?? You can measure ground loss, you can\'t measure a horse getting scared just because he\'s on the inside of another hoss.
wheres you proof horses get scared of other horses or even tight quarters they dont have to squeeze through
Sometimes you can \"see\" that a horse (or rider) is reluctant to be on the rail. In fact, very astute riders will sometimes try to use their horse on the outside to push a horse down into the rail because they know it\'s a potentially uncomfortable position. You can\'t measure stuff like this, but you can see it sometimes.
no you cant, its got to be looked at, studied, notes taken, knowing the riders and the horses, knowing the track.
I think using measurements is great, but you have to also consider that these are animals. Its the reason why most of the public cant look past the last race beyer or sheet number, why the high fig number is chalk 80% of the time.
kev wrote:
> Here\'s the question for you, where\'s your proof?? You can
> measure ground loss, you can\'t measure a horse getting scared
> just because he\'s on the inside of another hoss.
I talked to my horse the other day and he told me he was scared.........
What a foolish comment dude. It\'s obvious that some horses get intimidated when the approach tight quarters especially along the rail. Ever wathc a race? and don\'t tell me you\'ve not seen it. Horses just like people are all different. Also as you know Horses are herding animals and don\'t necissarily want to break away from the pack. It\'s those that do that become Champions.
Get Real.
NC Tony
NoCarolinaTony wrote:
> I talked to my horse the other day and he told me he was
> scared.........
>
> What a foolish comment dude. It\'s obvious that some horses get
> intimidated when the approach tight quarters especially along
> the rail.
Tony, if thats directed to me I didn\'t say that approaching tight quarter might not spook them. I\'m talking running head to head with another animal.
Im not gonna argue this point any longer though. I\'ll take the ground and bet on the ground by projecting the trip.
Projecting the race is the correct approach but must factor Ground loss realtive to how the race will be run and whether or not the Horse can handle it as compared to his competition.
I\'m sorry if my response seemed harsh. I guess you can\'t take everything in writing as it\'s written as the intention may be be different that how it is literally written.
I know for certain that some horses do get intimidated by other horses, the rail, photographers ( Ask Gary Stevens), specators noise et al. I couldn\'t accept what you wrote. I think you cleared it up and I Understand what you meant.
I would like to see what you are talking about. How do you know?? Unless they take up while running for a second. Jerry any thoughts on this??
Kev,
I used to own Harness Horses. Some horses needed Blinks to keep them from looking around and being intimidated by other horses or sights. Others were afraid of the rail. Some wore cotton ear plugs and when they were pulled they would excclerate due to fear of noise they heard. Some always had to driven on the outside to have any chance. Some were brave and bold and could race inside or out.
You can believe what you want. I know what I know. Thats waht make the world go around.
Thats why we have so many religions in this world,political parties etc.
NC Tony