Wrote the following in the DRF rundown for the race:
\"Bellamy Road
The most common adjective used to describe his performance in the Wood Memorial G1 is freakish; posted the highest-last-Beyer for the effort and though there has been some controversy over the rating, we have to take into account that he set some quick splits and he made it all look effortless; only two starts for the year and could have some bounce coming off the peak effort, but has to be given his due; most expect him to contend for the lead with Spanish Chestnut if not others, but he exudes professionalism and looks capable of taking a different tack; some if to the proposition as he may have peaked too soon, but rates as the one to beat; choice for the win bet.\"
The interesting part to me was the following:
\"there has been some controversy over the rating\"
Perused a lot of stories about Bellamania, but certainly didn\'t read anyone questioning the \"rating\".
Other than discussions here concerning the circumstances surrounding the figure, did anyone hear a controversy regarding the number?
Its easy to imagine Zito will send Bellamania Preakness if Going Wild passes. If Lukas is smart he\'ll enter both his horses to keep Zito honest. Hey, you\'re Dr. Fager or you\'re not. If you\'re not, learn to rate.
http://www.drf.com/row/row.html
Post Edited (05-09-05 21:47)
I do Beyer style ratings, and I posted pretty soon after the race on at least a couple boards that it was too high. I gave it a 111, not a huge difference, but big enough to move him for towering over the field to marginally best. Nothing since the Wood has been run has changed my mind.
hmmmmm
Well thats interesting. Just guessing, Beyer split the variant and tied the Wood to the earlier 10 furlong race on the card. Oblivious to the fact that in all likelihood the form also collapsed in that race. (The winner also) On the basis of variant from pars between the two races the Wood was Huge. Beyerguy, I tend to think you\'re 111 was closer to reality and that Bellamania was fast but no faster than the rest of the Fab Four.
What did Beyer say? The Wood was \"legitimate\". However that was after he first mentioned \"ambiguiety\".
He\'s a good horse and will be very dangerous in the right circumstances.
beyer,
I saw your notes on BR posted here right after the Wood.
Combine that 111 with the fact that he was loose against Grade 3 animals that day and had never been tested in any prior race. Suddenly his performance in a fast paced Derby running wide doesn\'t look so difficult to comprehend. He didn\'t run that poorly in the Derby.
CH:
Your post is right on target.
classhandicapper wrote:
> beyer,
>
> I saw your notes on BR posted here right after the Wood.
>
> Combine that 111 with the fact that he was loose against Grade
> 3 animals that day and had never been tested in any prior race.
The preceding isn\'t entirely true. He was tested in the Keeneland Breeders Futurity by Consolidator. When headed he backed up. It looked very similar in the Derby with the exception that he was chasing for awhile and they didn\'t go by him as fast because pace and bounce had eliminated most of the good horses.
There was so much hype on that horse, it acutally got to my common sense too. I was gonna bet (save) him for two weeks. Only tossed him the last couple days of deliberation. That was the one positive event of the race. Tossing Bellamania saved me money. Wish I\'d seen Tgraphs Seminar before the race. Never was gonna win, but would have saved quite a bit more by down factoring Bandini.
> Suddenly his performance in a fast paced Derby running wide
> doesn\'t look so difficult to comprehend. He didn\'t run that
> poorly in the Derby.
Post Edited (05-10-05 08:37)
CTC,
\"Never was gonna win, but would have saved quite a bit more by down factoring Bandini.\"
I don\'t have any regrets about using Bandini - especially in light of how BR ran. I made a lot of money this spring betting lightly raced improving Pletcher horses against popular wisdom about how they would develop. I also avoided some losses by not underrating the chances of some I didn\'t bet that won. If I wasn\'t a bonehead I would have had Flower Ally in the Lanes End also. I had the number punched and didn\'t click \"submit\" on my computer. I\'ll take Pletcher every day of the week with lightly raced high quality developing horses.
I can understand some people not liking Bandini because they thought his Bluegrass was too slow.
I can understand some people not liking him because they thought his Bluegrass was too fast.
My opinion was that his performance in the BG was better than the Beyer figure gave it credit for (because pace was a factor), but not so fast that I was questioning his ability to reproduce it (like I was with BR). He ran dreadfully without much excuse (they are saying he was was climbing and may have hurt something).
I don\'t think there\'s going to be a way to evaluate that BG after the fact so we can know who was actually right about the race.
If you thought it was very fast you probably still think it was very fast.
If you thought it was slow you probably still think it was slow.
However Bandini ran in the BG, he didn\'t duplicate it on Saturday.
I hated High Limit Saturday, but I don\'t think we learned a thing about the BG based on his debacle either.
Consolidator is retired.
IMO, Closing Argument ran the best race of his life Saturday. You could easily argue that his performance in the Derby verfied that the BG was very fast \"or\" that he was a short horse for the BG as many here (including me) said was possible before the race and improved for the Derby.
I guess Sun King\'s performance tilts towards the race not being all that fast, but there are plenty of other excuses that can be given for Sun King.
We\'ll learn more about these horses later in the year if they stay healthy.
Post Edited (05-10-05 10:08)
Class,
You could also easily argue that each race is a separate event. Why is there anything left to \"learn\" from the BGrass? High Limit was hurt and Bandini didn\'t run. Bandini\'s performance could have nothing to do with the BGrass. Maybe he didn\'t like the track? Bad post?
This is the kind of thing that you write that I love...
\"I guess Sun King\'s performance tilts towards the race not being all that fast, but there are plenty of other excuses that can be given for Sun King.\"
You realize you are saying absolutely nothing here, right? I mean these long posts where you sum things up and say NOTHING are hard to wade through. I keep thinking you\'re going to come up with something. If there are \"plenty of other excuses\" for Sun King\'s performance then it \"tilts\" the BGrass...nowhere, right?
You have nothing to say here, so why are you posting?
TG had the BGrass very fast, looking at his sheet before the Derby I thought he would back up. There was A LOT of stuff posted on this site about \"big top\" horses backing up badly in the Derby and Bandini ran a big top and backed up badly in the Derby. Really the stuff posted by Chris and others was great, specific and useful. Absolutely the opposite of the stuff you post, where you pile unfounded assumptions on top of unfounded assumptions, and after the race, you continue to work your way backwards through your unfounded assumptions over and over again.
\"We\'ll learn more about these horses later in the year if they stay healthy.\"
Words to live by.
HP
HP,
\"You could also easily argue that each race is a separate event. Why is there anything left to \"learn\" from the BGrass? \"
Intellectual curiousity and races in the future where my opinion of how well a horse is capable of running in the future could be based on an accurate appraisal of the BG.
\"You realize you are saying absolutely nothing here, right?\"
Yes. That was the point. Unfortunately IMO there was nothing to be learned by Sun King\'s performance - though I wish there was.
\"TG had the BGrass very fast, looking at his sheet before the Derby I thought he would back up. There was A LOT of stuff posted on this site about \"big top\" horses backing up badly in the Derby and Bandini ran a big top and backed up badly in the Derby.\"
You do realize that Beyer, Pace Figs, myself, and virtually everyone else on the planet except for TG and Rag had that race slower (some much slower) - putting it more or less in line with normal 3YO development for Bandini. If you believed the race was slower, then you woundn\'t be throwing him out based on a big new top. You would be trying to figure if he was fast enough to win if he just duplicated it. I can understand you taking the TG figure as gospel, but IMO it wasn\'t and still isn\'t clear if a \"big new top\" had anything at all to do with Bandini\'s dreadful performance.
Post Edited (05-10-05 10:33)
\"Beyer, Pace Figs, myself, and virtually everyone else on the planet except for TG and Rags had that race slower (some much slower) - putting it more or less in line with normal 3YO development for Bandini.\"
Maybe TG and Rags are right and everybody else is wrong?
If YOUR figs were worth anything you wouldn\'t have so much time to post here.
I\'m sure Pace Figs are great, especially since they don\'t include WIND, which everybody knows is not a major factor. Running a .45 half into a strong wind is the same as running a .45 half with no wind, right? Since you rely on figures without WIND, I guess you have never been outdoors, since you don\'t think this is important. Most people who have actually been outdoors know it is.
Figures without wind (just one example) have no real value. That\'s why Pace Figs are free.
Since your figs probably don\'t include unimportant things like wind, I\'m sure they must be very useful. Try running into a 30 MPH wind sometime and tell me you feel confident leaving it out of your figures. Why would you prefer figures without wind and why would you think they were a more accurate reflection of reality? Reality includes wind!
Ground loss probably isn\'t very important either. Nope, all you need is a stopwatch and you\'re all set!
\"I made a lot of money this spring betting lightly raced improving Pletcher horses against popular wisdom about how they would develop.\"
And this had a lot to do with your \"figures,\" right? Betting Pletcher \"against popular wisdom?\" Yeah, those were some kind of longshot bombs Pletcher was putting out there this spring. You\'re probably ready to retire about now.
I don\'t take it as gospel, but TG has a superior methodology that more accurately reflects a horse\'s performance. Jerry\'s record in the Derby is A LOT better than Beyer\'s! Most people who post here are well aware of the shortcomings of the other methods...
Maybe you should post your figures for big races here, instead of reviewing the BGrass (again)? I\'ll look forward to it.
HP
In light of the many horses over the years which have not translated their form from KEE to CD ( we have several examples this past weekend), why argue about a non-issue such as the BG.
HIGH LIMIT ran last... BANDINI was next to last... and CA, beaten 10 lenghths, almost won the Derby. Let\'s move on.
IMO, the BG has been and always will be the biggest joke of a prep because of the track it is run over. I\'d put more stock in the Whirlaway at AQU.
Good Luck,
Joe b.
HP,
\"Maybe TG and Rags are right and everybody else is wrong?\"
Certainly possible and I said as much when JB posted the sheets for the day. They made perfect sense to me.
\"Maybe you should post your figures for big races here, instead of reviewing the BGrass (again)? I\'ll look forward to it.\"
I did and they squared perfectly when the impact of pace was taken into consideration as posted.
It\'s not job my to post pacefigs #s, but I saw them. Even though they were a hair different than mine, they squared perfectly when the impact of pace was taken into consideration.
So you can see my problem.
I am looking at two views of the same race that make perfect sense. However they tell me different things about how fast the race was and how well certain horses ran.
One tells me that Bandini probably bounced from here to the moon and the other tells me that Bandini hadn\'t run an especially fast race relative to his prior performances to begin with and lost for other reasons.
\"I\'d put more stock in the Whirlaway at AQU.\"
Now that was funny. :-)
\"One tells me that Bandini probably bounced from here to the moon and the other tells me that Bandini hadn\'t run an especially fast race relative to his prior performances to begin with and lost for other reasons.\"
The one that tells you Bandini hadn\'t run an especially fast race is probably wrong, since the method used to calculate those figures doesn\'t include many of the relevant variables.
As usual, you don\'t address some of the more relevant points...
Why would you prefer Pace Figs or your own figs without WIND, as just one variable for example?
Talk about WIND, not PACE. Figures without WIND have to be garbage. Seriously.
Explain to me how pace figures are useful without including wind? How do you compare .45 half miles, one with a 30MPH headwind and one with no wind? There is just no comparison. If your figures (or Pace Figures) don\'t take this into account, aren\'t they absolutely useless?
HP
\"Other than discussions here concerning the circumstances surrounding the figure, did anyone hear a controversy regarding the number?\"
It\'s possible Safdie is referring to James Quinn\'s timely piece in the Derby edition of Horseplayer Magazine. Quinn touts Rockport Harbor(!) as one of only four Derby contenders, and then in a sidebar makes the case that Bellamy Road\'s 120 is inflated, working off the variant for the two preceeding sprints Wood day.
Quinn says the \"standard\" sprint/route variant ratio is three-to-two, that is, a deviation of three lenghts in routes for every two lengths in sprints. He says the sprint variant was fast 10, making the Wood variant fast 15. And so he feels confident he can lop off 10 Beyer points from Survivalist\'s 92, causing him to run three lengths slower for his second place finish in the Wood(G1) than he did in his 2YO maiden win in October.
I made that last part up. Quinn only works off the winner and therefore delivers up this nonsense:
\"Although estimating variants can be an arty process, and that was surely the situation here, it\'s difficult to imagine how the Beyer associates arrived at the lofty 120. The projection technique could not have sufficed to estimate the route variant, as no horse in the Wood Memorial had recorded even a Beyer Speed Figure of 103, the equivalent Beyer par for the race, and Bellamy Road had not run faster than a Beyer 96. The projection technique would have yielded an even faster track variant, thereby reducing Bellamy Road\'s speed figure below a Beyer 110.\"
Now that I think about it, Quinn\'s logic doesn\'t rise to the level of \"controversy.\" It was your Bellamania posts Safdie was referring to, Chuckles.
Captain Stormfield wrote:
> \"Other than discussions here concerning the circumstances
> surrounding the figure, did anyone hear a controversy regarding
> the number?\"
>
> It\'s possible Safdie is referring to James Quinn\'s timely piece
> in the Derby edition of Horseplayer Magazine. Quinn touts
> Rockport Harbor(!) as one of only four Derby contenders, and
> then in a sidebar makes the case that Bellamy Road\'s 120 is
> inflated, working off the variant for the two preceeding
> sprints Wood day.
>
> Quinn says the \"standard\" sprint/route variant ratio is
> three-to-two, that is, a deviation of three lenghts in routes
> for every two lengths in sprints. He says the sprint variant
> was fast 10, making the Wood variant fast 15. And so he feels
> confident he can lop off 10 Beyer points from Survivalist\'s 92,
> causing him to run three lengths slower for his second place
> finish in the Wood(G1) than he did in his 2YO maiden win in
> October.
hmmmm Only 3 lengths? What about 6 maybe 8?. TGraph had Survivalist running a 6.1 for that October race. Regressing to nearly a 7 in his first 3YO start. Regression to a 6 in the Wood loses four lengths. Regression to an 8 would be eight lengths. That might seem unreasonable if you believed Survivalist was a two turn horse.
TGraph uses the far more reliable technique of considering the field. That doesn\'t mean its not at times problematic. It doesnt mean they weren\'t right either.
> I made that last part up. Quinn only works off the winner and
> therefore delivers up this nonsense:
>
> \"Although estimating variants can be an arty process, and that
> was surely the situation here, it\'s difficult to imagine how
> the Beyer associates arrived at the lofty 120. The projection
> technique could not have sufficed to estimate the route
> variant, as no horse in the Wood Memorial had recorded even a
> Beyer Speed Figure of 103, the equivalent Beyer par for the
> race, and Bellamy Road had not run faster than a Beyer 96. The
> projection technique would have yielded an even faster track
> variant, thereby reducing Bellamy Road\'s speed figure below a
> Beyer 110.\"
>
> Now that I think about it, Quinn\'s logic doesn\'t rise to the
> level of \"controversy.\" It was your Bellamania posts Safdie
> was referring to, Chuckles.
I wasn\'t implying anyone but the Wonks here read my posts and I\'m generally discounted and that bothers me to no end...lol j/k
I would need more information to try and figure out what Quinn was saying 17 lengths is undoubtedly a lot of Beyer points. Essentially it looks like hes implying the others regressed and they got the variant wrong which essentially was my position.
However, they made they sprint variant an 8 and the route variant a 10, this despite the fact that essentially four track records were set my animals that hadn\'t run track records before. The true variants were much lower in my estimation and each click there is an additional length.
Post Edited (05-11-05 00:09)
CTC,
\"I would need more information to try and figure out what Quinn was saying 17 lengths is undoubtedly a lot of Beyer points. Essentially it looks like hes implying the others regressed and they got the variant wrong which essentially was my position.\"
The pace of the Wood was essentially in line with the final time. By definition, that means the pace was fast for the class because no matter what you assign the race - anything between 110 and 120 is still very fast for the bunch of Grade 3 animals that were chasing Bellamy Road.
IMO, several horses clearly raced close enough to BR to be impacted by that pace. I played Scrappy T in the Withers for that very reason. IMO, he didn\'t regress in the Wood, he was impacted by pace.
In my studies, I have found that when a dominant front runner crushes the opposition (like BR did), it often sets a pace that is too fast for most of the other participants. That causes them to run slower than they would otherwise run. There is no exact formula for this. IMO, the horses right on, or just off the pace, are usually impacted. However, I often even find many of the closers running subpar races. I \"think\" that\'s because the internal fractions remain fast from start to finish and when they are trying to get into contention they get used up also. That\'s not the same race development as the typical duel where the race collapses in the late middle and allows the closers to get into contention with ease.
In any event, if you interpret the victory in terms of the margins, you wind up giving an inflated figure to the winner so you can assign figures that make sense to the rest of the field. (I hope that is clear enough).
Beyerguy suggested that the Wood figure was very inflated right after the race. I was less sure either way because of Survivalist\'s performance. However, I think it is at least worth considering the possibility that he has been right all along.
Post Edited (05-11-05 08:40)
classhandicapper wrote:
> CTC,
>
> \"I would need more information to try and figure out what Quinn
> was saying 17 lengths is undoubtedly a lot of Beyer points.
> Essentially it looks like hes implying the others regressed and
> they got the variant wrong which essentially was my position.\"
>
> The pace of the Wood was essentially in line with the final
> time.
I really wasn\'t discussing Pace because I dont\' think Pace was really a factor in the Wood. To me the whole issue was track effect and regression. But, when a horse gets it all his own way you get real nice energy expenditure fractional times like we saw in the Wood. Sure it looked good. The conditions were Ideal.
>By definition, that means the pace was fast for the class
> because no matter what you assign the race - anything between
> 110 and 120 is still very fast for the bunch of Grade 3 animals
> that were chasing Bellamy Road.
Agreed a final figure of 110 was probably outside of the ability of Bellamanias Wood competitiors.
> IMO, several horses clearly raced close enough to BR to be
> impacted by that pace. I played Scrappy T in the Withers for
> that very reason.
Like I said, I didn\'t think Pace was a predominant issue in the Wood. Bellamania had it all his own way, as he prefers, and Going Wild was not ready to show up. Going Wild hasn\'t been right, but he did out hustle Bellamania from outside in the Derby. Personally I don\'t believe its because Bellamania rated. Scrappy T was impeded by Bellamania right out of the gate in the Wood and had his saddle slip four marks into the race. I hammered Scrappy in the Withers, but it wasn\'t because I thought he needed the lead or ran his race in the Wood.
Any horse can look good having it all his own way. Sometimes thats on the lead, sometimes its from off a blistering pace.
> In any event, if you interpret the victory in terms of the
> margins, you wind up giving an inflated figure to the winner so
> you can assign figures that make sense to the rest of the
> field.
I agree with the foregoing, if you\'re basing projecting the final figure off another \"need the lead\" type who needs the front end or X\'s. Scrappy and Survivalist however are not that type of horse.
> Beyerguy suggested that the Wood figure was very inflated right
> after the race. I was less sure either way because of
> Survivalist\'s performance. However, I think it is at least
> worth considering the possibility that he has been right all
> along.
If Bellamania had run from off the pace and exploded late on a card with 3 two turn races there would be no issue. Theres not much of an issue now. We don\'t have to factor Bellamania from here in. Maybe the Travers, where he might be the bet if it looks like he gets a free running chance for the front.
CTC,
\"Like I said, I didn\'t think Pace was a predominant issue in the Wood. Bellamania had it all his own way,\"
The pace was no factor for BR because he was running well within his normal range. However, IMO it was a factor for several of the inferior horses that were trying to keep up with him. A loaf in the park for BR is a speed duel for Scrappy T. :-)
Personally I think it possible that Scrappy could win a match race with Bellamania. I think it likely he can outfoot him if he wants to. Going into the Wood Scrappy had never run any half faster than 46:4 but he was right on Bellamania in .46 and 1.09.4 fractions and that was with a less than ideal start and a slipped saddle.
As far as Bellamania running within his normal range. His normal range may be fast enough to get the lead on whatever speed the surface hes running on is. Sometimes he gets the lead in .46 on a blistering track. Sometimes he runs a .46 and doesnt get the lead and may in fact be running harder while in arrears. Scrappy and Survivalist did not lose the Wood because they were outpaced. They lost to a good horse loose on a wicked surface they were not right for the race.
CtC,
If you really believe that Scrappy would win a match race with Bellamy Road, you should be taking out a second mortgage on your house to bet the Preakness, because loading up on Scrappy at the 30-1 he might be, could be a windfall for you.
Scrappy would be 8-1 against Bellamy in a match race....... And not playable at that price...
Thats debatable.
Lets say the Match race is 8.5 marks at Monmouth Park and Scrappy breaks inside. My belief is Bellamania is a head case and ran on the best part of the Track Derby day. He\'s got a nice long gawky stride when left alone. He is 17 hands. Not left alone its another matter. The Derby was not a bad effort, but I do believe he ran the golden path.
While I\'m not in the \"bias doesn\'t exist\" camp, I don\'t believe there\'s enough evidence to conclude that it was an outside track at CD on Saturday. A number of horses won with basically 2 path trips and Wildcat Shoes went :43 4/5 on the rail and still won.
The Chart says Wildcat was in the 3 path:
Wildcat Shoes: pace,3path, gamely, under pressure,held sway
TGraph calls it 2wide.
Whats really interesting is that he was on the lead and chose to run in that path though having the rail option. Incidentally he ran rail type trips in his two prior races.
They were definitely staying clear of the rail. The rest of it is evidence upon swings and visual interpretation.
Wide was good. That and bounce cost Alex the Derby.
Well the chart is wrong. If he was in the two path I wouldn\'t draw any conclusion that its an outside track. I would consider a 2 path track to be neutral.