i actually have three overlays in the race at the morning line:
oratory
reverberate
robador
i take it oratory doesn\'t like to run inside of horses. of course, my biggest rooting interest will be for mr sword to finish last, as is my nature anytime paraneck runs a horse.
good luck mike,
Ro - too slow?
SG - not sure. \"3\" top on dirt. should get a nice trip tracking Rev. i will try and beat as second choice.
MS - tough read for me. nice sprint at lrl, and a nice inner track # at aqu, but the TP route was a bit slow. try and beat here.
Chekhov - $3.3mio tabor colt, will be the fav, and should be. nice # last closing into a fast pace. best runner here.
GM - the fastest, but a tough call - one nice fig for dutrow.
Gor - too slow?
Rev - should get a nice trip on the lead.
Ora - two decent figs, should get a decent stalking trip two wide.
....
i will take a shot with the fastest, GM, on top. dutrow seems to have this guy in good shape, and he liked the wide turns at GP. i think chekhov is the best horse, but he will be the favorite, and the belmont is the goal. hoping for a late run for 2nd. flat ex, GM over Chek. tri GM/Chek/SG, Rev, Ora (small CH/Gm saver just in case). good luck everybody!!
I\'m not so sure Reverberate is getting the lead off of Sir Greeley.
5/8 Reverberate went a slow 1/4(24.09) and 1/2(47.12) in comparison to the other races at Belmont that day.Sir Greeley can get the front and control the race without having to work all that hard given the rest of the field.I can\'t see Jerkens and Coa allowing Sir Greeley to get backed down on the rail behind Reverberate.I think they\'re sending here bouncing out of that turf race.
Reverberate & Sir Greeley look like they can control the pace of this race. Chekhov ran a big one 1st time at BEL.
John
Is there any reason to suspect GM won\'t pair for Dutrow? GM to win and key with Chekov and Mr. Sword running back to one of his good ones.
At the odds, have to go with Mr. Sword bouncing back
very nice call miked. I liked reverberate on the odds but couldn\'t come up with the winner.
By the way, that looks awfully quick. Anyone else scratching there head?
slow pace fast finish, not that excited about a horse who will be rushed back in two weeks to go another 3 furlongs and will be second choice.
Saddlecloth,
What would this horse have had to do to get you \"excited\"? He was 4/5 off os Secretariat\'s track record and broke the stakes record easily. Slow early and fast late is EXACTLY the type of race you want before the Belmont. Going fast early at 1 1/2 miles is not the way to win the ONLY true distance race left in the U.S., not that milers win the Kentucky Derby on a regular basis.
The trainer said the Belmont was doubtful after the race. That would be disappointing since he would at least be interesting in that race. And right now, the Belmont needs some interesting horses because AA looks like \"death and taxes\" right now.
Very curious to see the figure this horse gets from Jerry in today\'s race. Bailey doesn\'t gush over every horse and he was gushing over this one.
Interesting.....
This race is going to come back pretty DARN fast, but IMO it was more of a glorified NW2 allowance race than a legitimate Grade 2 stakes race form a quality perspective. Plus, they absolutely walked on the front end because Sir Greeley got squeezed at the start and got taken out of his probable role as pace setter. It looked like it was going to be a slow paced race even if Sir Greeley (who looked a little faster than these early) didn\'t have a terrible start.
I would tend to say this performance is not quite as good as it looks on paper - though still very very good.
There were so many lightly raced high quality horses in there, someone was probably going to step forward big.
At least we have a new name for the summer stakes races like the Travers.
Post Edited (05-29-05 10:30)
Jerry,
You can defend your horses are getting faster theory until the cows come home. Your Najran example is old and isolated.Today, we know that most race tracks are scraping the surface on major race days making it produce fast raw times.Tracks are NOT slower today especially on big race days.
You failed to address my earlier comments that horses are NOT bigger and stronger than they were years ago, go check like I did.All agree that most other species are bigger, stronger, faster than years ago.We know about nutrition etc, but your ASSUMPTION that runners are generally bigger than they used to be, is wrong.
The fact remains that you are unable to justify or explain why so many average dirt performances come up in the negative territory on your product.I am not talking about high class runners throwing big time figs.
Between the \"ugly\" pairs and the inordinate number of negative figs awarded for \"common\" performances, it is difficult to have the same confidence in the figs, as in years past.
Like I stated previously, I believe that somewhere along the line, your personal opinions/prejudices have creapt into your figure making endeavors.This may explain why some figs are now close to ridiculous on occasion,imo.
Specifically,once again,NAME the runners who would \"dust\"Fager and Sec with all things equal, I would love to take you to task on those two specifically.Enough generalities without any proof and only your fairly isolated opinion on Horses Getting Faster.
Lastly, there is no argument from me that it is reasonable to think that horses(runners) are a couple of fifths faster in general but NOT 2 secs(10 lenghts) as you state.Don\'t go near Harness racing, I owned 20 of them and there are MANY reasons why they are 5 seconds+ faster than they used to be.
There you go, the old school, living in the past \" no one would ever beat the great Sec.\"
This poll was on ESPN.com
What\'s it going to take for you to rate Ghostzapper as an all-time great?
1. Nothing, the BC win was enough for me= 7%
2. A good showing in his five or six 2005 starts with another BC win= 38%
3. Going undefeated in a coast to coast campaign of more than six races= 39%
4. The horse would have to sprout wings, literally= 18%
People just can\'t enjoy what we have now, they have to say well this horse is good, oh but he\'s no Sec. I think there is alot more better horses than Sec. was. I do think GZ will have to run very well the rest of this year, and Bobby said after the BC he wants to race him on the grass, just like the old great Sec.
doesn\'t get much better than that mikemd (especially mr sword coming in last). i didn\'t get a chance to watch the races yesterday, but oratory dusted some decent horses in pretty quick time. impressive.
Kev,
The questions revolve around horses getting faster and unwarranted negative figs.Ghostzapper is a legit beast.Feel free to join in on the discussion if you feel you have the experience/knowledge of the subject.
The negative TGs/ high Beyers affect the game on another level. Right now Bellamy Road could be retired to stud as the \"fastest three year old ever\" based on one race.
In the 7th at Belmont today, Contrast (SCRATCHED) is bred to the nines (Unbridled- Safely Kept). She broke her maiden at Delaware in 1:11.4, earning a seemingly ridiculous Beyer of 105. If you go back and look at the PPs for the Genuine Risk Handicap at Bel May 14, I don\'t think there was a single older filly or mare in this (graded) race with a Beyer that high.
Are horses getting faster? Here\'s an overly simple, naive look at figure making: For Contrast to have run 6f in 1:11.4, and to be awarded a 105 Beyer, there must have been some very SLOW animals running at Delaware that day.
Its more than track surfaces and cushion. Nerud and Lauren did not have the advantages of all the advances made in (legitimate)vetrinary medicine, horsehoeing and equine nutrition; I don\'t think they even had aluminum plates when Dr Fager raced.
The sad part of today\'s game is that if another colt who is truly on Secretariat\'s level comes along and dominates the Triple Crown races the way Sec did, economics dictate that he would be retired before he finished cooling out after the Belmont.
Post Edited (05-29-05 12:29)
Thats cool Miff, but I was talking about the part you said. \"Specifically,once again,NAME the runners who would \"dust\"Fager and Sec with all things equal, I would love to take you to task on those two specifically.\" That seems like it has nothing to do with neg. numbers son. I would have to agree with ya on the run of the mill type horses getting those big numbers. I\'m sure Jerry will jump on this soon. Someone is way off base here, TG has horses getting alot faster now, but Rag and beyer might have them getting little bit faster. I guess it all depends on who your going to support. I like to see when the first neg. number was given on TG ( what year) and how many was given last year alone.
As long as we are talking about Ghostzapper, I\'d to contribute the observation that he was tons the best in the Kings Bishop also. IMO, that was a very biased racetrack. I played Great Notion in the race based on that bias (just missed). GZ was simply amazing that day to almost win and proved my view in his next start.
As far as I am concerned he should be 9 for 10. I don\'t know what happened to him in his 2nd start, but he was dreadful relative to 1st start and was laid off after it. So something probably happened.
Nornmally I would strongly discount the chances of any horse returning off a layoff into a Grade 1 race like the Met despite the fact that Frankel is pretty skilled at getting them ready. There is a difference between getting your horse ready to run his usual figure in a weaker prep against horses that he lays over and the kind of conditioning needed to overcome a hotly contested Grade 1 race like the Met.
However, IMO he may be so darn good, this is like a prep for him.
Personally, I\'m hoping he can do it and goes on to prove himself as one of the all time greats later this yeat.
However, tomorrow will be no picnic.
Forest Danger is dynamite (at least up to 7F) and getting better.
Love of Money is also probably a budding terror whose race out in CA was wildly underrated. That was a vicious early pace and he held very well that day. Plus, I love 5 day repeaters.
The pace could be very interesting and important to the outcome.
Post Edited (05-29-05 12:38)
RichieBee,
The two examples you named are situations where Beyer and T-Graph have horses running fast figures.
But the argument is more that T-Graph has horses running significantly faster than Beyer, relative to prior years. There is no question that Beyer and Jerry have completely different views on the speed of today\'s horses versus other year\'s horses.
Jerry had four horses this year going into the Derby with 4 of the 5 fastest figs for a 3-year old EVER.
Beyer had Bellamy Road with a big fig, but actually the other 3 had BELOW average Beyers for their races, relative to previous years.
After the Derby, Beyer called this one of the worst (slowest) 3 year old crops ever. Based on figures, Jerry can\'t possibly agree with that.
Anyway, my point is that it isn\'t Jerry and Andy on one side of the argument and Miff and others on the other side. Jerry stands alone on this, with Rags somewhere in the middle (of the three figuremakers)
Personally, I don\'t think it is a big deal as to whether horses now are faster than horses 20 years ago. I think what matters most is whether Jerry is right about the 7th race at Oaklawn versus the 3rd at Belmont, versus the 6th at Santa Anita.
However, if Miff\'s point is that the potential inaccuracy of the figures of today\'s horses versus yesteryear\'s horses could be driven by a fundamental flaw in methodology that would also bring into doubt all of today\'s figures at T-Graph, then that is a different story.
Thank you all you princes of racing history..you gatekeepers of tradition.
I feel so selfish...so self centered for using brown\'s merely to increase my off-shore account.
Brown\'s #\'s are too fast,he\'s caught up with some mentality problems,he\'s gay,he\'s ugly!
But when he drinks Red Stripe ..he\'s a beautiful man!
To think that I can go for years w/out giving a **** whether certain young animals can run as fast as their breeding{duh..improve the stock}is certainly a sign of an immature and uncaring human. I apoligize.
Hey jerr...keep them happy sheets comin..you has been.
PARTYpokerON!
Davidrex,
The discussion is not about using the TG figs alone.If you are ONLY looking at TG figs, then the comparative scale is totally CONSISTENT.When you compare TG data to other reliable sources, there are sometimes major differences which require clarification if you are betting serious money.
You know the sheets are the only figure makers that has been making them from way back in the days. So with that said, I don\'t have alot of old sheets. I do have some of Secretariat he ran a 1- three times and one 0\", they gave him the same number for the derby and the Bel. S. Bid as far as 3yr derby and before a 2-, spend a buck 0, unbridled 2, fu peg 2-, monarchos -0\", S.jones 0+, winning colors 3\"....I would love to see some of the older sheets of the older runner\'s. Now you have GZ running -3+ and Mineshaft ran something like a -2\", they have Cigar running the best at a -1\".anythoughts on all this??
Kev,
I absolutely have some thoughts.Horses are NOT faster, figures are.
Do you use any of the speed figures?? TG, Rag, Beyer\'s???
Miff-- rather than get caught up in the same old merry-go-round, let\'s try this. I\'m sure you will be at Belmont tomorrow, a day when according to you they will \"scrape\" the track to speed it up. They post the cushion depth daily, so why don\'t you check to see what it is, and report back here. Keep in mind that it was 2 1/2 inches back in the 70s.
Let us know. Also, Passaro seems like an approachable guy-- why don\'t you talk to him about changes in the tracks he has worked on over the years. Just make sure you ask him open ended questions about the tracks, not the horses.
Kev,
No Rags, but all of the others and some pace stuff.TG figs have become faster relative to the scale used to compare figs to the other sources.
Also, visual comparison of many races(live and from tapes) confirm fairly frequent negative figs awarded far too often relative to the actual performance on the track.
Jimbo-- per a conversation I had with Friedman on their site about 4 or 5 years ago, Ragozin was using pars (Len said it was how you knew that figures from different generations were on the same scale). As I pointed out to him, the opposite is true-- pars \"freeze\" the horse population, so if they are improving as a whole you won\'t know it. Up to that point our figures had gone from 3 points slower to about 3 points faster over 15 years or so, since then the relationship has remained basically constant, and Friedman said at the Expo that they no longer used pars.
What you describe about the relationship between us and Andy is one of the ways I know that Andy is using pars at some point in the process (another is the relationship between certain circuits, or more specifically certain types of circuits). If you use pars you will not allow horses to be getting faster.
Miff-- rather than get caught up in the same old merry-go-round, let\'s try this. I\'m sure you will be at Belmont tomorrow, a day when according to you they will \"scrape\" the track to speed it up. They post the cushion depth daily, so why don\'t you check to see what it is, and report back here. Keep in mind that it was 2 1/2 inches back in the 70s.
JB,
I guess they didn\'t do anything Wood Day either, just to name one.I expect that you of all people would believe that when I used to approach Porcelli about why the track was so dead on occasion, he would swear the cushion was the same as always. The horses were just running two seconds slower than normal because they were all having an off day according to him.
Let me get this straight. You do NOT believe that many tracks scrape on some of their big days??
Miff-- Let\'s try it again. I am trying to give us a point from which to start a discussion with some facts, rather than guesses and subjective opinions-- why not just get the info, and then we can talk about it.
\"Also, visual comparison of many races(live and from tapes) confirm fairly frequent negative figs awarded far too often relative to the actual performance on the track.\"
come on now. why don\'t we get rid of all speed figures and someone just tells us how fast the race felt. tell me you really don\'t believe this and you were just saying it to get some fool to respond.
The fool who responded probably hasn\'t watched 100,000 live races.
that\'s 40 years of never missing a day. pretty impressive.
Mike,
That\'s 45 years and I have missed days and maybe 10-20 % were live TV.Not being a smart a-- but after following the game and TG closely for so long,I can spot figs which may be questionable, not by methodology, but rather by racing accumen.
Respectfully,
Mike
Thats \"acumen\" typo.
Pretty impresive indeed and also amazing (i think) is that you can tell a number is right or wrong by watching a race or replay . Does your approach to handicapping + wagering lead you (if it matters) to a positive roi ?
Marcus,
I do not believe there is anything that definitively proves that a fig is right or wrong.To me, figs bear out their accuracy over time.Figs are somewhat the opinion of the maker, oftentimes right(so to speak) and sometimes questionable.
My roi is ok but that has nothing to do with all of those who blindly defend every TG fig as gospel.
Miff , reading all this posted stuff and it\'s difficult at time\'s
guessing where some people are coming from - thanks , I understand clearly your point ... Though I would admit to blindly defending TG numbers - this years Derby is another validation in my opinion that the numbers are accurate and horses earning those big #\'s got the correct ratings for those efforts - Aflet Alex should have bounced ( in the KD ) and did off the negative figure .
I certainly don\'t know how to view most of these big negative number\'s that have been assigned this past while however I\'m working w/ them and acceping those negative number efforts for what they are .
Any guess weather Aflet Alex runs a new top or bounces in the Belmont - conventional wisdom would have AA a good race - bad race type , but I think in this case the answer is not quite as simple as that ...
Post Edited (05-29-05 22:40)
TGJB wrote:
> If
> you use pars you will not allow horses to be getting faster.
>
This is confusing. Certainly you can\'t use ten year old pars. What the raw times were in their respective classes on the surface 10 years ago may not be relevant for a number of reasons. One is that the surface itself may have changed. Another is that the efforts have changed (For better or worse). If you\'re not prepared to accept the litany of discovered drugs is helping horses run faster, perhaps they are slower due to speed breeding and inbreeding? It just seems that a reference point for the class of individual races has great value, even with the high expertise model of assigning figures comparatively. To use pars, having up to date Pars for the previous year are essential. (Obviously, that gets tough with a race like the Belmont Stakes, due to how rarely the distance and class is run.)
The movement away from pars is a movement away from questionable science towards greater expertise on the subjective aspect of figure making. When the experts are comparing every horse in a race and every horse on a card with a vast history of back numbers it gives the number more collaboration. But there certainly is a heightened subjectivity.
I personally believe TGraph is dead on with horses running faster. But, its very cheap drug induced speed that can come unraveled in the right circumstances. These are not Secretariats or Spectacular Bids. These are mojo animals.
Post Edited (05-29-05 20:06)
If you do a search on this site for \"pars\" you will find a fuller explanation of why they are a bad idea once you have got a rough data base. But what we\'re talking about here is not par in terms of time, but in figures-- a 10 claimer for older males is a 9, etc.
TGJB,
\"....is one of the ways I know that Andy is using pars at some point in the process (another is the relationship between certain circuits, or more specifically certain types of circuits).\"
This is what I know.
He is using projection figures for a \"minimum\" of all the major circuits and has a database of every figure for every horse.
When horses switch circuits the computer system examines the horses\' figures and will flag any discrepancies that are consistent enough to know that one of the circuits is in error. An adjustment can then be made.
In other words if horses coming from track \"X\" are running \"Y\" slower when they leave for other tracks, he knows that track \"X\" is too fast.
I know that he keeps pars for all the tracks, but if he uses them in the process at all, it\'s only for the very tiny tracks. If those tracks get out of whack, they are brought back in line as horses from those tracks move circuits with projection figures (same as above).
IMHO, there is no way to be certain about anyone\'s figures over time despite the fact that many helpful techniques are used.
Every figure maker has biases in their interpretation of results (things like the impact/lack thereof of pace, position, weight, bias, moving up and down the class ladder, etc...) that slowly creep into the figures over time.
No one is more interested in making cross generation comparisons than I am, but I think we are all better off worrying about getting the current figures right than the relationship between decades.
\"Beyer had Bellamy Road with a big fig, but actually the other 3 had BELOW average Beyers for their races, relative to previous years. \"
I think the one race among the major 3YO preps that the two disagreed about in a significant way was the Blue Grass.
Beyer and a few other figure makers had the Blue Grass with a mediocre figure of 103 (or thereabouts) and TG and RAG had the race very fast.
I thought the race was somewhere in between the two. :-)
CH--
I agree with Jimbo\'s post regarding the set up for the BELMONT STAKES with a slow early--fast late pace profile.
The second matter is trainer intention. It appears that ORATORY was fully cranked up for a race the connections pointed to. That may not be the case for the runner-up.
REVERBERATE was under restraint in the early going and my feeling is he could have set a stronger pace if the jock so desired. He finished strongly, although no threat to the winner who certainly had more bottom to him and a quicker turn of foot.
In a 3yo Triple Crown year where only AFLEET ALEX has shown any consistent grade 1 credentials and who may be vulnerable to a regression (especially going 1 1/2), perhaps REVERBERATE deserves a longer look.
The pedigree, for those of you who still consider it a factor, should help as he goes longer.
Good Luck,
Joe B.