Ask the Experts

Attached are the Thoro-Graph sheets for the 2007 Belmont field with the respective Thoro-Graph figures earned for each horse.

TGAB,


Did you forget the slow pace symbol or did you guys think that the pace was normal, especially considering the speed of the track.


Mike

Miff-- the pace was slow, but I didn\'t really have to do much in terms of adjusting the race (I was able to pretty much just use the final time, with only a small deduction), so I didn\'t mark it.

Miff, the Good News is that the Belmont Stakes is a unique race at a unique distance. In other words if the figure assigned is far too fast, who is gonna challenge the figure upon subsequent results at lesser distance? Lets assume the Belmont winner never approaches the same form in the respective class again. Who can complain with any objective justification upon those latter results?

Now to the figures. Were you the least bit troubled by Jerry\'s explanation of why no slow pace notation was necessary? Didn\'t the words used feel contorted to you?

TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Miff-- the pace was slow, but I didn\'t really have
> to do much in terms of adjusting the race (I was
> able to pretty much just use the final time, with
> only a small deduction), so I didn\'t mark it.

Theres a simple truism when it comes to the facts/truth and its this:

\"When you stretch the Truth, you ruin it.\"

I read the Tgraph comments above as saying \"The pace was slow, the final time was consistent with the track speed.\" Really, so they ran inordinately fast late? Hey, isn\'t that what happened in the Blue Grass? You mean the same logical consistency doesn\'t apply to the Belmont Stakes where they LITERALLY crawled early?

Next item, lets look at the track Belmont day.

http://www.equibase.com/static/chart/pdf/BEL060907USA.pdf

22.68, 45.21, 1.08.81
23.46, 46.12, 1.09.62, 1.34.13, 1.47.33
22.35, 45.21, 1.10.12
22.07, 44.38, 1.08.70
22.38, 44.93, 1.09.08, 1.21.49
22.24, 45.10, 1.09.13, 1.34.70
24.74, 50.14, 1.15.32, 1.40.23, 2.04.91, 2.28.75

Now Mr. Brown\'s comments to me Post Blue Grass...

[CTC-- the idea behind the \"slow pace\" designation is that sometimes the pace is so slow the final time is affected-- you see it happen often in grass races here, and on a regular basis in Europe. What happens is that they go so slow that they simply can\'t make up the lost time-- they can\'t run 20 second quarters or 40 second halves. TG, Time-Form, Beyer, and Ragozin all adjust our figures when that happens, though we have different ways of doing it (Ragozin evidently has some kind of formula, according to Friedman, while the rest of us go by the horses).

http://www.thorograph.com/phorum/read.php?1,33954,34063#msg-34063

I have some preliminary questions:

1. Do you recognize the Belmont Track as Fast for the Day in question? Faster than Par for the respective classes.?

2. Considering your post Bluegrass response to me, do you believe the logical consistency of \"Slow Early, Fast Late, thus Slower TFig\" is exclusive to Poly and Turf?  Or in other words that said tenet does not apply to dirt, the Belmont Distance or some other exception? (That is a rhetorical question, but for others you can answer it if you wish.)

3. Must Curlin have matched a previous performance level in your application of assigning numbers to the Belmont Stakes based upon certain probabilities of horses pairing?

In summation, after announcing TGraph is consistent with their logical applications, are those that stated or believed that in any kind of position to remain credible upon that proclamation?  Even if they do like to cut up now and then?

I\'m very disappointed. I can\'t see the logic at all.

-------------------------------------------------------
> TGAB,
>
>
> Did you forget the slow pace symbol or did you
> guys think that the pace was normal, especially
> considering the speed of the track.
>
>
> Mike

The numbers on the race look perfect to me.

Anybody who watched the stretch run and saw the effort Curlin gave know that giving him a slower figure in the Belmont means he would have X\'ed.

Curlins effort on Saturday was no X.

Considering this was the Filly\'s second race in three months and she will still be getting a small break in weights come Travers Day.

Means she will be primed up to go out and kick these Colts Asses one more time before she starts looking for older boys to pick on.........

Jerry,

Just to clarify - given that this was the only 2-turn race of the day and the pace was so slow, this would be the perfect race to cut loose and pretty much base the figures on the horses\' performance. Is that what you did?

Bob

Seems to me your ignoring the seminal tenet. And they call me Contrarian. At least when I\'m contrary its value related.

Silver Charm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The numbers on the race look perfect to me.
>
> Anybody who watched the stretch run and saw the
> effort Curlin gave know that giving him a slower
> figure in the Belmont means he would have X\'ed.
>
> Curlins effort on Saturday was no X.
>
> Considering this was the Filly\'s second race in
> three months and she will still be getting a small
> break in weights come Travers Day.
>
> Means she will be primed up to go out and kick
> these Colts Asses one more time before she starts
> looking for older boys to pick on.........

Chuck,

I don\'t get caught up in figs alone. The Belmont was a slow race in total, period.It is also noteworthy that RTR simply outbrushed Curlin the last quarter by a head bob, after \"working out\" a mile in app 1.40 on a very fast surface all day.Using the final time and coming to the fig awarded ONLY makes sense in the projection methodology because it did not happen on the track.You can look at past Belmonts that went faster raw times on SLOWER surfaces that did not get as good a figure as RTR(ground et al included). How can that be except by completely ignoring the clock and rewarding figs strictly off of past figs and what \"looks\" pretty on the graph.

The only way to come to these figs was to go off prior performances, e.g Tiago and ignore the pedestrian time. A slower legit fig is my preference in these cases with the appropriate sl pace designation.

I don\'t think that translates to RTR being a truly negative territory runner, except at a mile and a half(so far).I believe a good colt will wax her going a LEGIT fast race at say 1 1/8th rigth now.

Without saying more, I called the figs exactly before they were posted and discussed with a couple of fellow posters why they would be as they are.


Mike

Perfect Drift wrote:

 I need to stop hearing how GREAT this race was... it was similar to the B.S. Blue Grass and any number is nothing more than conjecture. She was bred for the distance and able to provide a bit more acceleration than Curlin. The fact she was wide is moot since she was running slower than 90% of all workouts. TAP is planning the CCA Oaks (good move) and the Travers (her Waterloo). She doesn\'t want any part of Street Sense with ample rest at an honest pace over 10f at SAR.

I agree totally with Perfect Drift\'s comments about the Belmont race...

No running was done until the last 3 or 4 furlongs......The fact that Rags was bred for the 1 and 1/2  distance aided her significantly....

Regarding the numbers...there are always different perspectives.....
I do not want to light a fire in the bushes but here goes anyways....(These comments are my opinions only and any open discussions would be appreciated and most welcomed )

Sprints

SPRINT RACES HAVE THEIR OWN NUMBERS (5 furlongs to 7 furlongs).....

No matter what numbers you use or are using... a 100 beyer at 6 furlongs does not equate to a 100 beyer at a mile and a half....(On a footnote...over the years I have noticed that true mile and 1/4 horses can run 7 furlongs very well...Unbridled, Ferdinand, and Spectacular Bid come to mind....

Distance races (mile races up to a 1 1/8 distances are most comparables even though you can stretch it up to mile and 1/4 races)

The factors of pace are very important.....The Bluegrass race was immeasureable since it had a crawling pace...no significant running was done until the last couple of furlongs...

Races at mile and quarter and up are dependent so much on a horse\'s natural innate ability ( being bred for the distance much like a horse being bred for turf...)  This does not mean the horse cannot get the distance but more so being able to handle a certain early pace and still get home faster than the competitions.....

JMHO......

Miff, I read the finish the same way you do. It was the Bluegrass all over again, but between two horses instead of 4.

I make the winner\'s race about a TGraph 3. I know what that means in regard to the others. But thats the way the cookie crumbles and the way it crumbles at distance exaggerates the margins and the offs.

Miff wrote,

\"I believe a good colt will wax her going a LEGIT fast race at say 1 1/8th rigth now.\"

Miff care to name who those colts are.

Thanks

I would take Curlin over her in a rematch if you guaranteed me that the pace would be fast enough to prevent the race from turning into a 2-3 furlong sprint with both horses fresh and on approximately equal terms turning for home.

I am not trying to diminsh her performance. She was outstanding.

I just \"suspect\" that Curlin has a little more in the tank.

It\'s hard to tell that kind of thing when both horses finish so well. Overall ability doesn\'t always translate 100% equally into ability to finish well off a slow pace.

Silver,

I think SS,Curlin and a rested, at his best HS would beat her.She is very long winded but has never run a \"legit\" fast fig like the colts, so far.

I think she is a terrific filly who may turn out to be any kind but it is dangerous to look at her Belmont fig and assess her as a \"negative\" performer.I hope they all show in the Travers and run their best.

Mike

Miff,

Are you saying the TG Figures are not legitimate. ie-the last one. Perhaps TGJB  has something to say about that.

Her Oaks number was pretty damn good by all three main figure makers.

Maybe throw in Any Given Saturday if healthy and maybe one or two more.

But after those are we not really stretching things a bit........

I would venture to guess that Curlin\'s development curve is all through . Additionally , based on his numbers , a common sense view of his pattern , his spring campaign , and the overall trends in the TG negative number studies that Curlin will never get back to that big one  as a 3 yo if ever .
My best \"guess\" on the final Belmont numbers for Rags to Riches was about right and she seems ready to run better numbers going forward - however , Curlin\'s  near X effort at this juncture in his career must be viewed IMO as a very bad sign for his future prospects .

Chuck,

I kinda thought the figs would come out the way they did, I won\'t elaborate on why.Looking at the Belmont from a racing perspective, I thought RTR paired and the rest follow off her considering weight, ground, beaten lenghts.It was a VERY slow pace and the horses could not make up the time to run to their norm, imo kinda like  the Blue Grass.

Looking at the absolutely empty performance by HS, for example it is hard to believe that he ran only two points off his fast Preakness try.From the quarter pole to the wire he lost app 11 lengths to the top two and only went back a couple of points??.I read where Gomez said at the 3/8ths he was excited that he was going to win only to press down and have no horse, again only a two point regression despite pedestrian splits up to that point(mile in 1.40).HS did no running at any point, just look at the race.

I did not research this myself but someone told me this was the only modern Belmont run where the fastest quarter in the entire race was 23.4. The track was +60 by the variants geeks(means that you add .60 to the raw time to adjust for the speed of the track for the day)


Having said that, the very special distance of the Belmont makes looking at those figs, going forward, not very relevant unless they are running a mile and a half.I don\'t think that RTR is any kind of fraud, I think she\'s terrific.


Mike

Silver,


Look at the time of the race and the speed of the track all day and draw your own conclusion. I did not make up the time or the splits.Fig guys are in a tough spot with these slow paced races.Mark Hopkins(beyer speed figs) was forced to change RTR previous because of the Belmont,regardless of the time.They looked at where they all finished in relation to norm and tossed the teletimer. I understand it, just don\'t agree with it.

Yes, AGS may come back a top colt. I know they were very high on him in Jan/Feb.
I did not mean to infer that any 3yr old colt could wax RTR, I think she\'s great and would probably beat most if not all of them going very long. I question how she would do running shorter/ with faster splits where her apparent superior stamina is not an overriding factor as it appeared in the Belmont.

Mike

>They looked at where they all finished in relation to norm and tossed the teletimer. I understand it, just don\'t agree with it. <

This kind of thing is always an issue because some people want a performance figure and some people just want a speed figure that they can adjust subjectively for themselves for issues like pace etc....

I\'m not much of an expert on projecting future performances based on patterns. I still see both Curlin and Rags to Riches as lightly raced developing 3YOs that are capable of further improvement if they are handled properly and don\'t have any unlucky physical setbacks.  Granted, Curlin\'s -3 is a tough target for him to improve on, but I think he\'s capable of more than he showed in the Belmont given the figure he was assigned.

In the last eight years, six Travers champs raced in the Belmont & two did not (the last two)...

out of those six winners, all six ran new TG tops in the Belmont. I am hesitant to label the Belmont a freak race and disregard the TG # earned, as they have done a great job with this race, whether it was \"easy\" or not.

At the weights, the filly\'s top is competitive with the colts, but obviously not with another clean wide run against a fresh Curlin or Bo-rail. She would have to earn it the hard way.


sidenote: recognized TGAB sitting in sec 3T at the Belmont looking like the cat that ate the canary... must have been a good day

Let me deal with some of this.

1-- You guys didn\'t pay close enough attention to my original comments. I said that as it worked out, I used the time almost straight up. The adjustment I made from the basic speed chart was very small. I did not have to mark the race \"S. Pace\".

2-- Bob is right, in a situation like this (only 2 turn race of the day) you do it off the horses, and the relationships between their figures once you adjust for ground, weight, and lengths. Serious figure makers know that it is wrong to tie together one and two turn races (see \"Changing Track Speeds\"), and this is especially true at Belmont, where you sometimes have to make really big adjustments for the 1 1/4 and 1 1/2 mile races. BUT THAT WAS NOT THE CASE HERE-- see above.

3-- For all the races prior to the Belmont there was a strong 8 O\' Clock wind (imagine you are looking down at the track as a clock, with 12 being midway on the backstretch, and 6 at the finish line). This means that the wind was behind them on the turn of all one turn races, and also helped them on the backstretch of all one turn races longer than 6f. At 12f (once around) the wind is a wash.

4-- Comparisons to the Blue Grass are ridiculous. In that race they went 1:16 and change, and only had 3f after that to make up the time. Here they went faster for the 6f, and had another 6f to make up any lost time-- which they did (see 1, above). If that had not been the case, you would have seen the horses bunched more at the finish, as you did (to an extreme) at the finish of the BG.

5-- If you believe the slow pace affected the time of the race, you are saying they would have run FASTER. Get it? When we mark a race \"S. Pace\", we are giving it a FASTER figure than the raw time would warrant. You want me to make this race FASTER?

6-- The reason that RTR and HS got better figures than some might think is because of significant ground loss. Some (Miff) don\'t think it should be built into the figure, and they can adjust for it if they want. But that\'s the way we do it, and the Belmont figures are definitely right. They fit tight with the horses (try coming up with another adjustment and seeing what it does to ALL the horses), and that would be true even if the time didn\'t line up.

\"You guys didn\'t pay close enough attention to my original comments. I said that as it worked out, I used the time almost straight up. The adjustment I made from the basic speed chart was very small. I did not mark the race \"S. Pace\". \"

I saw your original comment and have no argument with the figure.

I believe some people are suggesting that the final time of the Belmont was not particularly fast relative to other Belmonts, but the track itself looked very fast based on some of the other final times.  

So if you didn\'t break out the Belmont in a significant way from the rest of the day, perhaps they are suggesting (without realizing it) that your basic chart is not consistent with their thinking and/or the thinking of other figure makers that did break out the race.

I hope that makes sense. It requires no response. It\'s just a way of explaining why some people seem to be on a different page in their thinking.

Jerry,

I understand what you did and knew that ground would kinda save the fig. Never said you got it wrong, just think it\'s an ugly negative. I do not think that one should totally disregard the relationship between one and two turn races when there is only one two turn races on the day.

Is it your view that the track did not play fast on the whole, that day? Common sense tells you that the Belmont was the slowest dirt race of the day, maybe not by performance figs but certainly by variant adjusted raw time comparisons.
They went a mile in 1.40(workout time) and only had 4f to make up time not 6f as you stated.

Regarding ground, you can use this as a poster race where ground loss while crawling around the first turn did not seem as relevant as if they were \"racing\"around the first turn.RTR\'s performance seems to confirm that. Never said ground should not be included or there is a better way to handle it but imo, all ground loss may not be equal.

We can differ on views but the fact is that 2.28.3 is slow for those horses on a surface that fast and thats a racing fact.


Mike

In terms of comparison with the BG, I used the 6f splits, as I have in earlier discussions, so they had 6f to make it up from there. From the mile fraction they only had to run 48 and change over the last 4f to make up the time and get to the final time that produced that figure. And again, that\'s at basically the same variant as the one turn races-- after adjusting for wind that speeded up the one turn races, and the 126 most were carrying vs. that carried in other races.

By the way, Beyer has the race as fast or faster than we do. Ragozin has not posted his yet, but after seeing what he did with the BG, Derby, and Preakness, he could come up with absolutely anything without it being a surprise.

For the rest, I can only refer you back to my post.

Miff wrote,

\"They went a mile in 1.40(workout time) and only had 4f to make up time not 6f as you stated.\"

Miff they went 6F in 1:15 and change. They started picking up the pace from there and flew home.

Also in the Derby what did Street Sense run his opening half in? About 51? No one complained about his Derby figure and he come home for the last 6F about the same as they did in the Belmont.

And the horses in the Belmont had already run 2F further when they started picking it up.

Quit trashing the poor girl. She is nice looking and she is fast........

\"Miff they went 6F in 1:15 and change. They started picking up the pace from there and flew home\"



Silver,

As a matter of fact they did not pick up the pace much at all until there was 4f to run.From the 6f marker to the mile marker they went another slow 24.91 quarter and from there they went 24.68 and finished in 23.83. The last 4f app 48.51,fast for the last 4f of a mile and a half race.So two thirds of the race was slow and one third was fast.


I already said I think RTR may be any kind, what bashing?


Mike

Yeah, that was me in 3T. Had a good day--hit some, lost others, but a good day overall. You should\'ve stopped by and said hello.

Rags is a Terrific filly. She had enough bottom,, enough rest and enough pedigree to sprint home late as you previously stated.

Pletcher sat on the fence with her. The reason he sat on the fence is because he knows damn well he didn\'t have a Negative 2 Filly before the Belmont and he knows damn well he doesn\'t have a Negative 2 Filly after the Belmont. In that regard you can rest assured Pletcher will not set Rags against the Boys again unless he can catch a weak or vulnerable field. The one area where Pletcher does excel is finding the softest spot to place his horses. There is no argument with his acumen in that regard. The Belmont is enough evidence of that.

The people that post and read here are not novices. Everyone makes mistakes but its incredulous to try and convince long time race goers that upon infinitesimally small samples of \"marathon\" races, with an ever eroding genetic pedigree base that it is possible to make a number \"off the horses\", without reference to the speed of the other races on the day or a pace out of the glacial age. This is especially so when the \"Stand Alone\" race is run at a unique distance that the horses will only run one time in their lives. To do so strains credibility and is not reasonable. Its doubly unreasonable when the field is either unproven or hard raced.  

Report is that Andy Beyer scored the Belmont a 98 initially and then modified it to a 107. Its clear he made a mistake. The issue for handicappers to determine is the chronology of that mistake. I have a very strong opinion upon that, still I\'m currently voting Rags for Champion 3YO Colt! even if she only ran a Tgraph 3, to perhaps 2 in the Belmont. I\'m sticking with 3.

CtC


miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> \"Miff they went 6F in 1:15 and change. They
> started picking up the pace from there and flew
> home\"
>
>
>
> Silver,
>
> As a matter of fact they did not pick up the pace
> much at all until there was 4f to run.From the 6f
> marker to the mile marker they went another slow
> 24.91 quarter and from there they went 24.68 and
> finished in 23.83. The last 4f app 48.51,fast for
> the last 4f of a mile and a half race.So two
> thirds of the race was slow and one third was
> fast.
>
>
> I already said I think RTR may be any kind, what
> bashing?
>
>
> Mike

fkach - well your expansive knowledge of horseflesh and racing IMO gives you expert status on sheet reading . Horses don\'t run these numbers out of the blue - as I\'ve been learning .  One must keep an open mind on things and weigh all factors when handicapping  .  Curlin vs Rags to Riches certainly would be an interesting rematch to watch . Perhaps many of this years springtime superstars , without the greatest numbers or patterns at present will indeed make comeback\'s and put in good showings later in the season due to proper handling etc as your were saying ...

Chuckles, you\'re truly demented..........

The only way to prove it is for Rags to take on the Colts again and I\'m about certain that will never happen unless Pletcher gets stupid.

Do you really think Rags ran the most challenging distance in her life out of her division with a slow pace in a slow time on a fast track and scored by two full points the best figure of her career vs those colts? Do you really believe that?

I thought Tgraph made a 3 point error with Bellamy Road in his Wood Memorial, but it was a logically influenced error. This time, they\'ve made a 4 point error which is the largest error in my years of following them and that error defies all logic.

Immediately after the race I thought a zero was likely. Since tearing it apart I\'m certain that the negative number is a large error.

spa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Chuckles, you\'re truly demented..........

funny yes i do believe it.  even moreso after you write your prose.  oh well

You guys with this 3 business are nuts if you think the filly regressed from the Oaks and the entire field X\'ed.

ctc2 - What did  you have  for breakfast  ? Maybe your confusing the 3 with Mr ED ...

Silver Charm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You guys with this 3 business are nuts if you
> think the filly regressed from the Oaks and the
> entire field X\'ed.

I think some people believe the figures assigned might reflect the ability of the horses but not the actual time of the race (because of the pace).

What I find ironic is CTC makes a pretty good case that a single race around two turns, at a distance that none of these horses has ever run, in an era when pedigrees are more geared towards shorter distances, when the pace was very slow, cannot be projected with a high degree of confidence off of past figures.

He then proceeds to tell us the figure should be a 3 as if he has solved all the complexities.

It\'s pretty obvious that Curlin and RTR both ran very well. They were well clear of the rest of the horses, both exceptionally game, finished exceptionally fast etc...  

Do we really need to know the exact figure they earned in a 12F slow paced race to evaluate them later in the season under much different conditions?

The Beyer and TG figures look cool to me. ;-)

fkach Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do we really need to know the exact figure they
> earned in a 12F slow paced race to evaluate them
> later in the season under much different
> conditions?
>
> The Beyer and TG figures look cool to me. ;-)


I have long seen problems with tying 12F races to much shorter ones, but I think fk is correct here. It was a slow pace and a sprint home at a distance they will never see again. This figure does not matter.

If you had the filly, you made money. That\'s what counts.

CTC-- As I have made clear-- and as you have apparently failed to understand-- I based the figures on the figure histories of the horses, and as it happened IT FIT based on the final time of the race, relative to the one turn races.

Besides your analysis of the pedigrees of the horses, what \"logic\" did you base your \"3\" on? How much of a correction did you make for the one turn races for the wind?

TGJB -

I assume the \"3\" is just Chuckles being Chuckles, but his and other posts do raise a question I am curious about.

Several posts in recent weeks have questioned figs earned at classic distances based, at least in part, on the premise that since a particular horse (or the horse population in general) is not bred to go long, their TG figs should decline, or at least not improve, as they stretch out to 10 furlongs or further.

To me, the fallacy in that argument is that TG is based on a relative, not an absolute, scale.  Since you are doing numbers based on the horses, what matters is how well a horse stretches out relative to its peers (who are also distance-challenged) not relative to some absolute standard (such as a long-standing par time).

For example, suppose that on one if its gimmick days, Calder were to run the \"Carson City Stakes\" for offspring of Carson City (is he still alive?) or some other brilliant sprint sire, with eligibility being conditioned on having a TG top of between 1 and 2 and never having raced  at a mile or more.  Suppose further that the race was run at 10 furlongs on the dirt and that it was the only dirt race on the card.  Presumably, in order to give most of the entrants figures that are consistent with their prior tops, you would give the winner a new top.  Chuckles would then complain that a son (or daughter) of Carson City was unlikely to have run a new top at 10 furlongs, but you would have been faithful to your methodology and TG users would understand how you got to the number.

What I am curious about is your reference to your Belmont figs being consistent with your \"speed chart.\"  You have in the past referred to regularly checking your figures at various tracks to make sure you keep one- and two-turn races in alignment.  I assume your efforts are reflected in your speed charts.  If the breed is becoming more distance-challenged, presumably you should have seen that reflected in the relationship between one- and two-turn races captured in your speed charts, particularly at the tracks with larger circumferences (Belmont being an extreme example; Saratoga being perhaps a better one).

All of this leads to two questions.  First, have you seen such a trend?  Second, given the small number of races run at two turns at Belmont, how reliable do you think the chart is in that case?

Thanks for your time.

P.S. Your spell-checker objects to \"TG\".

I have not said that we try to keep a speed chart that shows the average relationship between one and two turn races (which is what a speed chart does) because the relationship changes constantly, at all tracks.

Your example about the Carson Citys is a good one. But what would usually happen is that one or more horses would be able to handle the distance (some CS do, the TGI is again an average), and most would not. You would get an extreme spread in the figures-- you wouldn\'t get the kind of thing you got with the Belmont figures, where they fell into line so tightly for so many horses-- and I would deal with the race accordingly, giving most bad numbers. And by the way, when a race collapses the way you indicate, it usually shows up in the fractions.

Those who are used to making figures using speed charts and pars, without wind, weight and ground, don\'t get what we do here. Those guys are almost invariably just looking at the winners, where those of us using the \"projection method\" are looking at all the figures for all the horses, after those figures have been fine tuned with the variables. (And by the way, I think the term projection method is responsible for a lot of confusion. It implies we are projecting our opinions of what the horse will run-- and while all figures are subjective to some degree, we don\'t, and our way is no more subjective than one that simply uses pars and averages. The subjective decision there-- an incorrect one-- is to use just the winners against pars, and then use averages. We use all the horses that ran in THAT race).

Finally, this-- ALL speed charts are based on a relative, not absolute scale. It goes to how they are arrived at to begin with-- by looking at the average time horses run at different distances, a relative question by definition, and one that might be answered differently now than 50 years ago, or 50 years from now. But the way a figure maker knows whether his figures are right TODAY is by how tight they come out, over lots of figures for lots of horses in lots of races. You can\'t make that work out unless the figures you are using to make your decisions are right. And if you try to add or subtract even a point or two from the Belmont figures you will see what I mean.

TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> By the way, Beyer has the race as fast or faster
> than we do. Ragozin has not posted his yet, but
> after seeing what he did with the BG, Derby, and
> Preakness, he could come up with absolutely
> anything without it being a surprise.



I believe they gave RTR a 4 3/4, which seems kinda slow to me.

Jerry,

What role does the variant adjusted raw time play in awarding TG figs. The adjusted Belmont was pegged at 2.29.1, painfully slow on the day and as an aside, historically when looking at track speed for other Belmonts.

Without giving up anything you deem to be proprietary, please explain the relevance of the role played by the variant adjusted time, in addition to or in concert with you looking at what all the horses run. Understood ground, wind are in there also.


What I believe is most questioned here is how do you get a fast fig in a very slow race? We know there was substantial ground for the winner and others.Can you crawl around the track 6 wide and still get a big fig? Don\'t you have to run somewhat fast also? Thanks.

Mike

Miff--

1-- We don\'t adjust into time, we adjust into figures.

2-- The concept of an adjusted time as you use it is based on an average variant for the day. As I explained in Changing Track Speeds that concept does not hold water-- I mentioned this in my previous post as well. Whoever gave you that 2:29 is using an average variant and a speed chart, and possibly only looking at the winners and using pars. It might be worth asking them. CTC certainly is-- that\'s why he lists the final times and classes of the races.

3-- It also might be worth asking them if they adjusted the one turn races for wind.

I look at all the information I can get my hands on, which most certainly includes the time of the race and of other races on the day.

By the way, the two most significant adjustments I made on Belmont day were to the first race (6f) and the third (1 1/8th one turn). I noticed that Beyer made an even more dramatic adjustment to the third, but that could be because he doesn\'t use wind.

To paraphrase Dr. Mick Peterson (who has studied the properties of race tracks more than anyone but George Pratt),as I quote in Changing Track Speeds, the best way to judge the \"speed\" of a track is by seeing how fast horses run over it, in figure terms, compared to their previous figures. That means you have to go by the horses.

>By the way, the two most significant adjustments I made on Belmont day were to the first race (6f) and the third (1 1/8th one turn). I noticed that Beyer made an even more dramatic adjustment to the third, but that could be because he doesn\'t use wind. <

I was hoping those two races were going to come up, but I didn\'t want to distract from the Belmont conversation.  

It was pretty clear to me that those two races didn\'t fit in with the rest of the day. I know at least one other competent figure maker besides Beyer that also made adjustments to those races.

I wasn\'t at the track that day.

Was there anything you could pin down as an explanation for those two races needing seperate treatment?      

When a race really sticks out and an explanation is apparent, I can always put an asterisk in my notes about the race. It\'s all the variances that are too small to notice but large enough to influence my betting that I worry about because I don\'t know about them.

I know of nothing specific, but when you are dealing with a windy day, how much water they added (especially if it varies, which Porcelli indicated it does) and when probably has something to do with it. Also, gusts can make a difference, and the 1 1/8th has a very long run with the wind-- which is being estimated by a human.

Jerry,

1.\"We don\'t adjust into time, we adjust into figures\"



..not certain how you adjust into figures without first considering track speed and race time.




2.\"I look at all the information I can get my hands on, which most certainly includes the time of the race and of other races on the day\"


From the above, I guess you felt that the Belmont was not slow in total and I can\'t agree with that on any level by that day or historically.

Thanks for taking the time.

Mike

TGJB -

My bad on the speed chart for one- and two-turn races.  The following is the paragraph from your old post (April 2004) I was thinking of, and I see now that I remembered it incorrectly:

\"Well, there are ways to check this stuff-- Ragozin used to have a statistical check while I was there, we do one a little more accurate here, and as part of some really innovative stuff we are putting in place now we will be doing something even more sophisticated. But we ran the check as recently as this past February for not just So Cal but all tracks, and it works like this-- you look at the winning figure for all the older claimers at a track over the last couple of years, break them out and average them at every distance (to see if you have a distance out of line), and combine all the one turn races and compare them to the two turn races. At the circuits where I do the figures myself (about 10 now) EVERY SINGLE SPRINT/ROUTE RELATIONSHIP CAME UP WITHIN HALF A POINT. A couple of the smaller tracks done by others came up with a slightly bigger spread (about 1 1/2 points), and we are fixing those up.\"

Thanks for your thoughts on the other issues.

You really think that both Rags ran a legitimate Negative 1.2 and is going to improve or run negative 3\'s or 4\'s off that Belmont? (My mother never believed me, but I told her this handicapping thing against others was going to be easy.)

Let me undertake one more little demonstration for you and Basket77.

Rags Half Brother ran the Belmont in 2.27.86, he scored a 1.2, which is 7.5 lengths slower in a full second faster finish.

Afleet Alex won in 2.28.75, (The same time as Rags), beat his rivals by seven lengths but was scored 2.5 lengths slower than Rags.

Birdstone won in 2.27.50, in a race with swift fractions beating Smarty Jones by a length. Birdstone is scored 7.5 lengths slower than Rags in time that equates to nearly 7 lengths FASTER.

Empire Maker ran in 2.28.26, which is a half second faster than RAGS, but Tgraph thinks Rags is over 3 lengths the better.

This just goes on and on. At Point Given the faery tale stops. Even TGraph doesn\'t think Rags could have beaten Point Given. Anyone else getting an Andy Beyer flashback here?

Now that the Negative 1 1/2 is beginning to lose all credibility like a bad war that everyone was all for initially, let me ask again. Does Anyone really believe that Rags stepped up out of her division, ran the most challenging distance race of her life in a glacial pace upon a very fast track in slow time and scored, by two full points, the best figure of her career vs colts? Running faster than every colt in the history of the Belmont except Point Given and presumably Secretariat? Does anyone remotely believe that? If you do, I have some WMD whereabouts information you may be interested in.

\"Three\"

Say it, Learn it, Live it, Love it...because its the truth.

CtC  


marcus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would venture to guess that Curlin\'s development
> curve is all through . Additionally , based on his
> numbers , a common sense view of his pattern , his
> spring campaign , and the overall trends in the TG
> negative number studies that Curlin will never get
> back to that big one  as a 3 yo if ever .
> My best \"guess\" on the final Belmont numbers for
> Rags to Riches was about right and she seems ready
> to run better numbers going forward - however ,
> Curlin\'s  near X effort at this juncture in his
> career must be viewed IMO as a very bad sign for
> his future prospects .

I don\'t think that any horse will ever come close to Secretariat\'s awesome performance in the 1972\'s Belmont....running the distance in 2:24 and change after pressing a mind boggling early pace of 109 and change and the mile mark of 134 and change...This was perhaps the greatest distance performance of all time.....

Funny thing about Point Given was that Bob Baffert had a strong, legitimate chance aiming Congaree in the Derby in 2001 but Unbridled\'s Song fast early fractions did them both in setting up Monarchos\' fast Derby time....(I don\'t think Baffert will ever probably admit this fact.  Up until Point Given\'s win in the Belmont...The Belmont was the only Triple Crown race that Baffert wasn\'t able to win....Point Given should have been a Triple Crown winner in 2001...

Funny thing about numbers/figures is that you will always have intense debate regarding form cycles...and which races were pairs or which races were major efforts.....I think this aspect will always be a major eyesore when one is constructing variants and/or numbers/figures...One can have a strong opinion regarding a horse\'s form cycle...But it is always that second horse or horses that throws a monkey wrench into the debate...These debates about numbers will always be never ending....Personally I really believe in the concepts of form cycles and bounce patterns that are some of the foundations of the Thorograph.....The good thing is that this Belmont\'s distance is only one race in an unique distance that will hardly be run again this year\'s unless Todd Pletcher runs his filly against colts in the BC Turf at a mile and 1/2 later on in the year....But the fact remains that Rags To Riches came home with the fastest last fraction in recent Belmont runnings....(Personally, I think Curlin ran a sub par race in the Belmont...In looking back on his form cycle analysis, I think that Curlin was trained to come from behind in the Derby along with all the trouble that he encountered in the race itself.  Curlin ran a huge race in the Preakness)

CTC2 , I can honestly say that I don\'t know how to make speed figures and am probably much more talented as a \"guesser\" of numbers  than I would be as an actual \"figure maker\" .  

I\'m not really qualified  to ( intelligently and meaningfully ) discuss with you the relationships between previous Belmont numbers , their final times and respective beaten lengths etc - however , I\'m beginning to understand your position in this \"3\" business but still haven\'t been persuaded though I do appreciate the effort made to articulate your \"view\" .

I do understand a little that final times are relative and a function of many factors other than just when the clock starts and stops . fkach made an interesting point about a horses \"proper handling\" that I\'m taking under advisement - but I\'m skeptical in Curlins case  .

I remember you saying earlier that you\'ve seen many AP Indy runners fold in routes - but this Filly didn\'t . Personally , I do expect to see better numbers coming from her if she continues racing and why not . Besides - lets don\'t kid ourselves here - women run the world ...

Thats it? Your entire argument comes down to the Belmont can be scored so fast  because Rags came home so quick? The very same thing happened in the Bluegrass and the race was adjusted slower by Tgraph because of slow pace. Et Tu Brutte?You\'ve pulled one grain of sand from the beach and decided to analyze what the beach is comprised of from that single grain.

I\'m fully aware of how changing/different track speeds can alter these calculations, but the irony is Tgraph has already staked out a position that for this race, they make their numbers off the horses, not the track, so the variable of fast or slow track is not even considered for the Belmont Stakes.

Lastly let me state that I did not factor the previous Belmont winners I mentioned without reference to the tracks they ran upon. Heres another one for you. Point Given ran his Belmont in 2.26.53 which is roughly 12 lengths faster than Rags raw time. Tgraph has Rags within a point of Point Given.

In the end you have a filly running a 2 point Career Top in 2.28.75, which is on the slow side of Belmont Times. It came upon a very fast track with an extremely slow pace. It is the strangest figure I\'ve ever seen produced here and its getting stranger all the time.

What did the Crosstown Rags score this race?


streetbull Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don\'t think that any horse will ever come close
> to Secretariat\'s awesome performance in the 1972\'s
> Belmont....running the distance in 2:24 and change
> after pressing a mind boggling early pace of 109
> and change and the mile mark of 134 and
> change...This was perhaps the greatest distance
> performance of all time.....
>
> Funny thing about Point Given was that Bob Baffert
> had a strong, legitimate chance aiming Congaree in
> the Derby in 2001 but Unbridled\'s Song fast early
> fractions did them both in setting up Monarchos\'
> fast Derby time....(I don\'t think Baffert will
> ever probably admit this fact.  Up until Point
> Given\'s win in the Belmont...The Belmont was the
> only Triple Crown race that Baffert wasn\'t able to
> win....Point Given should have been a Triple Crown
> winner in 2001...
>
> Funny thing about numbers/figures is that you will
> always have intense debate regarding form
> cycles...and which races were pairs or which races
> were major efforts.....I think this aspect will
> always be a major eyesore when one is constructing
> variants and/or numbers/figures...One can have a
> strong opinion regarding a horse\'s form
> cycle...But it is always that second horse or
> horses that throws a monkey wrench into the
> debate...These debates about numbers will always
> be never ending....Personally I really believe in
> the concepts of form cycles and bounce patterns
> that are some of the foundations of the
> Thorograph.....The good thing is that this
> Belmont\'s distance is only one race in an unique
> distance that will hardly be run again this year\'s
> unless Todd Pletcher runs his filly against colts
> in the BC Turf at a mile and 1/2 later on in the
> year....But the fact remains that Rags To Riches
> came home with the fastest last fraction in recent
> Belmont runnings....(Personally, I think Curlin
> ran a sub par race in the Belmont...In looking
> back on his form cycle analysis, I think that
> Curlin was trained to come from behind in the
> Derby along with all the trouble that he
> encountered in the race itself.  Curlin ran a huge
> race in the Preakness)

Just wanted to add a couple of cents: if a horse puts in the same effort at a mile on asphalt as at a mile on thick cloying mud, the times will be quite different, but the number will be the same, all else equal (i.e., wind, path). So the slower--i.e., stuck-in-the-mud--effort will produce the same number.

If I understand the methodology...

CTC,

If you assigned a 3 to RTR, you would also have to assign much slower figures to the rest of the field. If you then compared your new adjusted figures to the horses\' prior figures, it would look like the whole field bounced to the moon.

If you want to argue that the whole field did run slower than usual because of the slow pace, I\'d be willing to buy that as a possibiity.

I am not willing to buy the possibility that the whole field ran sub par. It doesn\'t take exceptional visual skills or even much common sense to suspect that RTR ran her best lifetime effort in the Belmont. It was an outstanding visual performance, backed by an outstanding finish on the clock, against a high quality colt. This was obviously the best field she ever beat and she did it while losing some ground. How could it not be her best lifetime effort?

Again, if you want to say the whole field didn\'t run as fast as scored because of the pace, that\'s possible. However, all you are doing is reopening the debate about whether figures should reflect performance or speed. The speed of the race is debateable, her performance is not!  It was clearly her best lifetime effort!

msola1 wrote:

\"Just wanted to add a couple of cents: if a horse puts in the same effort at a mile on asphalt as at a mile on thick cloying mud, the times will be quite different, but the number will be the same, all else equal (i.e., wind, path). So the slower--i.e., stuck-in-the-mud--effort will produce the same number.

If I understand the methodology\"



....Yes, except the Belmont was run more on an asphalt track than a thick mud track and was STILL raw time slow.That\'s the whole debate.


Mike

Though Len hasn\'t posted the Ragozin numbers, I believe that Rags received a
4 3/4 and Curlin a 5 3/4.

CTC...

I have enjoyed reading all of your opinions on this board except the harbingers and arrows that you spewed once in a while....Understanding this game when it has been filled with naysayers and half-truths has been a great passion of mines.....

My statement that Rags came home very fast was not a statement regarding the numbers purported by Thoro-graph.....It was a statement that Rags ran a visually impressive race for the distance and the competition..... Without regards to any numbers here or on the sheets...I think that Point Given was pointed to the Belmont as his major effort race .....I still believe that Baffert was aiming Congaree for the Derby.....This kind of belief is also held for Lukas\'s Thunder Gulch who threw the Preakness to allow his stablemate Timber Country to win a Crowned Jewel Grade I race for breeding purposes..

I remembered when I used to use Today\'s Racing Digest\'s numbers....It was not the best but it was usable until they started screwing up the pars and variants because they (powers that be...) decided to change their formula mid-meet during the summer Hollywood Park meet years ago....I think this was when Brohammer took over the reins....I am no expert in numbers making nor in making variants....But I know a good thing about the theory of numbers in terms of ENERGy.....expended in a race.........(Personally, I think that any numbers made using last fraction as the main variable like the Today\'s racing digest is folly and delusional...But like a used car salesman...they only sell what they have in the lot, monnnnn....)

I am a firm believer in energy expended whether early or in a sustained fraction according to the programs originated from the Sartin Methodology....I am here because you have to understand form cycles in one\'s overall handicapping approach... ..If I would be forced in a corner and squeezed for my honest opinion...I would have to admit that any numbers not considering the early fractions of a race is not accurate....I say this statement for myself only...Like anything we learned in life....We can look at something as half-baked or half-full or half-empty....Some methodology make their beliefs or programs work with what they got...It doesn\'t have to be near perfect but they make it work with what they got until they improved upon their programs or methodology....

Meanwhile I am still awaiting a perfect numbers/figures that will paint beautiful and formful cycles...

I\'m not arguing to project the whole field sub-par. (Though the time of the race on that track was clearly sub-par.) I\'m merely asserting if you add one more horse  to the existing five that Tgraph currently scores with sub-par Belmont efforts it aligns the results with reality. That horse of course, is Curlin.

 

thfkach Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CTC,
>
> If you assigned a 3 to RTR, you would also have to
> assign much slower figures to the rest of the
> field. If you then compared your new adjusted
> figures to the horses\' prior figures, it would
> look like the whole field bounced to the moon.
>
> If you want to argue that the whole field did run
> slower than usual because of the slow pace, I\'d be
> willing to buy that as a possibiity.
>
> I am not willing to buy the possibility that the
> whole field ran sub par. It doesn\'t take
> exceptional visual skills or even much common
> sense to suspect that RTR ran her best lifetime
> effort in the Belmont. It was an outstanding
> visual performance, backed by an outstanding
> finish on the clock, against a high quality colt.
> This was obviously the best field she ever beat
> and she did it while losing some ground. How could
> it not be her best lifetime effort?
>
> Again, if you want to say the whole field didn\'t
> run as fast as scored because of the pace, that\'s
> possible. However, all you are doing is reopening
> the debate about whether figures should reflect
> performance or speed. The speed of the race is
> debateable, her performance is not!  It was
> clearly her best lifetime effort!

Your \"logic\" on this subject so far is your analysis of pedigree, and the time of the race compared to races not just on other days, but other years-- disregarding wind, ground loss, how the figures fitted, and even my comment that after measuring the variables the time itself relative to even the one turn races came up very close to what I gave it, with no adjustment. The measure of the figures is not just what the winner gets-- it\'s what everybody gets, relative to their figure histories, and to some degree what they get in the future.

Give it a rest.

Now is not the time to take a strong stand against a fast Belmont Stakes fig.

I don\'t make it a fast speed fig, but I make it a fast performance fig.

Take out the stumble, factor a 2w/2w trip, and picture JR using the filly from the 1/2 mile pole, and she puts up a mid 2:26 number.

Thats not what I said. I said that a single race around two turns, at a distance
that none of these horses has ever run, in an era
when pedigrees are more geared towards shorter
distances, when the pace was very slow, cannot be
SCORED FASTER than the subject horses Tops.

Obviously, Curlin was sitting upon and ran a larger regression and Rags did not career top in those circumstances. I have a high degree of confidence in my position and believe that such things CAN be predicted.

Some things are self evident.


[/fkach Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Silver Charm Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You guys with this 3 business are nuts if you
> > think the filly regressed from the Oaks and the
> > entire field X\'ed.
>
> I think some people believe the figures assigned
> might reflect the ability of the horses but not
> the actual time of the race (because of the pace).
>
>
> What I find ironic is CTC makes a pretty good case
> that a single race around two turns, at a distance
> that none of these horses has ever run, in an era
> when pedigrees are more geared towards shorter
> distances, when the pace was very slow, cannot be
> projected with a high degree of confidence off of
> past figures. >
> He then proceeds to tell us the figure should be a
> 3 as if he has solved all the complexities.
>
> It\'s pretty obvious that Curlin and RTR both ran
> very well. They were well clear of the rest of the
> horses, both exceptionally game, finished
> exceptionally fast etc...  
>
> Do we really need to know the exact figure they
> earned in a 12F slow paced race to evaluate them
> later in the season under much different
> conditions?
>
> The Beyer and TG figures look cool to me. ;-)

First off, if you think I\'m contesting the assigned figure to stir the pot you\'re mistaken.

Secondly your \"Carson City Derby\" with 10 entrants trying two turns and 10 poles for the first time in their lives is very much what was referred to conceptually. Running with Career tops of 2 at six poles would not result in any of the ten running a Zed at 10 furlongs. The Carson City Derby winner would score out at about a 6. If you ran 100 Carson City\'s and included a few that had scored faster races than 2\'s you might get a couple to run a 2 at 10 furlongs. But, if you ran them on three races in five weeks you wouldn\'t even get that 2 and you\'d break down half the Carson City\'s trying to.

Lastly, like Andy Beyer\'s credibility and Rags Negative Number, Carson City is gone now. She ran a slow Belmont.

BitPlayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TGJB -
>
> I assume the \"3\" is just Chuckles being Chuckles,
> but his and other posts do raise a question I am
> curious about.
>
> Several posts in recent weeks have questioned figs
> earned at classic distances based, at least in
> part, on the premise that since a particular horse
> (or the horse population in general) is not bred
> to go long, their TG figs should decline, or at
> least not improve, as they stretch out to 10
> furlongs or further.
>
> To me, the fallacy in that argument is that TG is
> based on a relative, not an absolute, scale.
> Since you are doing numbers based on the horses,
> what matters is how well a horse stretches out
> relative to its peers (who are also
> distance-challenged) not relative to some absolute
> standard (such as a long-standing par time).
>
> For example, suppose that on one if its gimmick
> days, Calder were to run the \"Carson City Stakes\"
> for offspring of Carson City (is he still alive?)
> or some other brilliant sprint sire, with
> eligibility being conditioned on having a TG top
> of between 1 and 2 and never having raced  at a
> mile or more.  Suppose further that the race was
> run at 10 furlongs on the dirt and that it was the
> only dirt race on the card.  Presumably, in order
> to give most of the entrants figures that are
> consistent with their prior tops, you would give
> the winner a new top.  Chuckles would then
> complain that a son (or daughter) of Carson City
> was unlikely to have run a new top at 10 furlongs,
> but you would have been faithful to your
> methodology and TG users would understand how you
> got to the number.
>
> What I am curious about is your reference to your
> Belmont figs being consistent with your \"speed
> chart.\"  You have in the past referred to
> regularly checking your figures at various tracks
> to make sure you keep one- and two-turn races in
> alignment.  I assume your efforts are reflected in
> your speed charts.  If the breed is becoming more
> distance-challenged, presumably you should have
> seen that reflected in the relationship between
> one- and two-turn races captured in your speed
> charts, particularly at the tracks with larger
> circumferences (Belmont being an extreme example;
> Saratoga being perhaps a better one).
>
> All of this leads to two questions.  First, have
> you seen such a trend?  Second, given the small
> number of races run at two turns at Belmont, how
> reliable do you think the chart is in that case?
>
> Thanks for your time.
>
> P.S. Your spell-checker objects to \"TG\".

Chuck of Gold:

    Chuckles, I think you\'ve worn everybody down, and are in danger of
committing the terrible sin of responding to your own posts, which as you
yourself have pointed out, is in poor form.

    You want to \"ambush\" her in the Travers or a later race against colts. If
you think the number for this filly is so inflated, you should be looking
forward to a Coaching Club of America ambush, at much shorter odds.

    I think the powers that be: TGJB, Crist/Beyer and the Men of Rag, should
sponsor a race each year at One Mile and One Half, to be run on Belmont Day,
for 3YO & Up. Give the race a large purse and graded status. Given the ongoing
contraction of traditional dirt racing in America, a race such as this could
probably draw animals from around the world.

    I wonder how much more figure players would rely on a Belmont # if the
commercial figure makers had even just one other 1-1/2 mile race on the same
card to give some direction as to wind, track speed, the effect of shadow on a
drying track, the fact that no horses have traveled on the clubhouse turn for
the entire day, etc.

    The most inconceivable component of the scenario would be that the
Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin of figure making would ever agree or
collaborate in this or any other joint venture. But if they did,in honor of
the downtown domiciles of these enterprises, the race could be called the \"Lower
Manhattan Handicap\".

Richie-- for many years they ran a starter hcp on Belmont day at 1 1/2 for older horses. It helped confirm that you can\'t tie together the one and two turn races.

CTC-- I love \"self evident.\" Why run the race? You\'re a decent handicapper, stick to things you know something about.

Just so we\'re clear-- my giving RTR the right figure does NOT mean a) I think she will necessarily beat colts in the future, or b) repeat that figure. That is a very big figure for a June 3yo filly, and it will probably take something out of her. I may very well be betting it will.

CtC wrote,

>when pedigrees are more geared towards shorter distances

How much weighting do you put in your own figures for this calculation?

Also I seem to remember you mentioning when you calculated Pace Figures you assessed how hard the horse was being restrained by the grip of the jockey\'s hands and the pressure in his boots.

I believe from the sheet figures she had  a chance to win. by me thinking she did from the sheet numbers which i use without question i hit a pick 4 ans 3 pick 3\'s tied into those numbers.  so my conclusion is there is little time spent on the who\'s, what\'s and how\'s the number got there. my time is using those numbers to make a plan to win money at the track.  its like work to me. i hire good people let them do there thinking for me use there information to make my business better.  my time is spent in other places than to quetion someone who has proven to me they get it right.

Thanks for the salutation, but it should read Chuck O\' Gold, but the 12 furlong implication did register big with me.

I don\'t respond to my own posts. When I\'m really hot, I merely amend them. I plead guilty to amending up a storm lately. Not sure why this bothers me so. You\'re correct, all I have to do is back my conclusion at the windows when the timing is right, though I\'m not sure the timing will be right against fillies in longer races.

I really don\'t like picking sides against the figures here, but in this case I have to. Add that the final time was slow on a fast day track to my last rant.

Folks like Rags last Belmont fraction in a race where Curlin found some impediments. They like her wide when wide kept her out of the trouble that some of the others inexplicably encountered. Everyone thinks Curlin ran his race because he was game in the stretch.

All that coming home quick indicates is that they ran very slow early.

Lets she them display the courage to run her in the Travers, she\'s game. Then we\'ll see how close to a Negative 2 she can really run. I\'m guessing she\'ll run about a 3.

CtC

richiebee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Chuck of Gold:
>
>     Chuckles, I think you\'ve worn everybody down,
> and are in danger of
> committing the terrible sin of responding to your
> own posts, which as you
> yourself have pointed out, is in poor form.
>
>     You want to \"ambush\" her in the Travers or a
> later race against colts. If
> you think the number for this filly is so
> inflated, you should be looking
> forward to a Coaching Club of America ambush, at
> much shorter odds.
>
>     I think the powers that be: TGJB, Crist/Beyer
> and the Men of Rag, should
> sponsor a race each year at One Mile and One Half,
> to be run on Belmont Day,
> for 3YO & Up. Give the race a large purse and
> graded status. Given the ongoing
> contraction of traditional dirt racing in America,
> a race such as this could
> probably draw animals from around the world.
>
>     I wonder how much more figure players would
> rely on a Belmont # if the
> commercial figure makers had even just one other
> 1-1/2 mile race on the same
> card to give some direction as to wind, track
> speed, the effect of shadow on a
> drying track, the fact that no horses have
> traveled on the clubhouse turn for
> the entire day, etc.
>
>     The most inconceivable component of the
> scenario would be that the
> Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin of figure making
> would ever agree or
> collaborate in this or any other joint venture.
> But if they did,in honor of
> the downtown domiciles of these enterprises, the
> race could be called the \"Lower
> Manhattan Handicap\".

\"Just so we\'re clear-- my giving RTR the right figure does NOT mean a) I think she will necessarily beat colts in the future, or b) repeat that figure. That is a very big figure for a June 3yo filly, and it will probably take something out of her. I may very well be betting it will.\"

I don\'t have a problem with the Belmont figure, but I do have a problem with these debates. No one ever wins.

If she runs back to the fast figure in a few months, you will say that it verifies the Belmont. Chuckles will say she was a lightly raced June 3YO filly that developed some more, ran faster at the shorter distance or that you scored the new figure wrong because you used the old one.

If she runs slower, you will say she bounced and Chuckles will say \"I told ya so\".

I think the only solution is to have the debate, form an opinion for yourself, and bet accordingly. When I am not sure, I am always very cautious.

nice post

No. The solution is to look at what ALL the horses from the race do, or just to read my original post again and again until you finally realize I made almost no adjustment to the final time. Again, those that only use the winners, and don\'t know how to adjust for wind, are engaged in a conversation that\'s over their heads.

I understood your original post and thought it was very relevant that the Belmont fit nicely with the rest of the day.

However, if you start with the assumption that 1 turn and 2 turn races often don\'t fit together, then add in the fact that there were pace and distance issues to at least consider, you can\'t totally discount the possibility that the race was slow for \"all the horses\" relative to their norms. The fact that it fit together nicely with the one turn races if you made it faster could have been an accident and not a matter of accuracy.

I doubt that\'s what happened, but I don\'t think it\'s a possibility that can be totally eliminated. No one has made a good case that the race should be slower though (certainly not CTC).

From my perspective, she beat a very solid colt despite spotting him significant ground and they seperated themselves from the rest of the field while coming home extremely fast. That screams and shouts that she ran a lifetime top no matter what the speed of the race. That\'s the obvious part that seems to escape CTC.

Everyone says shes hickory. The Belmont pace was slow as evidenced by how quick she came home. Theres no reason why that race should knock her out.

I\'m confident she will never repeat the number she was assigned in the Belmont again. I think it likely she\'ll win Grade I\'s vs. fillies at 10 furlongs while not approaching that Belmont figure again.

However the possibility does exist she will catch a small field of fillies she beats handily and be assigned a whopping figure upon comparison to the other horses even though the time of the race pales in comparison to other races on the subject card. Its happened before. It could happen again. If it happens I will point it out. However I will go on record right now with a guarantee that Rags will not only never pair her Belmont Figure vs. Colts, she will never pair it vs fillies either. How can someone have such confidence you ask? I\'m confident because the Belmont Stakes was misfigured by a large degree. I have whats referred to in some circles as \"cushion\". Actually its the deepest cushion in thoroughbred racing.

I\'ll take Richiebeebeebee\'s advice for now, but the day will come when I will put on a very public gloating exhibition. I\'m preparing to gloat like hell. In fact...I\'m gloating already.

Everyone knew she was a well bred filly that could surprise at about 12-1. It was her lucky day. Maybe she can get lucky next time?.................

fkach Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> \"Just so we\'re clear-- my giving RTR the right
> figure does NOT mean a) I think she will
> necessarily beat colts in the future, or b) repeat
> that figure. That is a very big figure for a June
> 3yo filly, and it will probably take something out
> of her. I may very well be betting it will.\"
>
> I don\'t have a problem with the Belmont figure,
> but I do have a problem with these debates. No one
> ever wins.
>
> If she runs back to the fast figure in a few
> months, you will say that it verifies the Belmont.
> Chuckles will say she was a lightly raced June 3YO
> filly that developed some more, ran faster at the
> shorter distance or that you scored the new figure
> wrong because you used the old one.
>
> If she runs slower, you will say she bounced and
> Chuckles will say \"I told ya so\".
>
> I think the only solution is to have the debate,
> form an opinion for yourself, and bet accordingly.
> When I am not sure, I am always very cautious.

Riva The Clown:

      Just to mention that the BeeBeeBee reference is not lost on me. Any
mention of the 1972 Preakness winner brings back memories of his trainer Del
Carroll. One morning Mr. Carroll went out to the track at Keeneland on the
stakes winner Sportin Life. Sportin Life found his way back to the barn alone
that morning.

      I think your obsession with RTR\'s current state of perceived overrate
will come to an anticlimatic end. I think RTR contests the CCA, the Alabama
and the BC Distaff. She probably faces short fields in the two NYRA races.I
think her owners and her trainer are wise enough to realize the value of having
her retire undefeated against colts.

     You are gloating for the wrong reason. You are the TG board\'s answer to
Leon Rasmussen and Federico Tesio. Your only gloat should be that the animal
best bred for 1- 1/2 got the job done. (Admittedly, Hard Spent\'s pedigree was
arguably equally admirable for 1-1/2)

Chuckles_the_Clown2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My exotics will follow this flowchart
>
> Hard Spun
> Tiago
>
> Hard Spun
> Tiago
> Curlin
> Slew\'s Tizzy
>
> Hard Spun
> Tiago
> Curlin
> Slew\'s Tizzy
> Wild Guy
> CP West
>
> ALL


ctc, only you could pick every horse in the field EXCEPT the filly, then gloat after the race. learn from your mistakes, as I did after my ugly Derby pick.

solid breeding handicapping made the filly much lower than 4-1, BEFORE THE RACE. in fact, if you took into account her fast final quarter and eighth while running the decent Oaks fig, you made her the most likely winner in the race. $10.40 was a gift.

you missed it. it\'s ok. we don\'t hate you. in fact, we liked your Derby handicapping. keep your head up, and take a break. I think you\'re getting worn out here.

She did get the job done and they\'ll never take that away from her. However she is a well bred filly, not a well bred colt.

I tend agree its probable they know they stole one and won\'t run vs the colots again. However, my gloat has nothing to do with the colt rematch. My gloat will shine equally as bright if she loses to fillies or beats them running 1\'s and 2\'s.

richiebee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Riva The Clown:
>
>       Just to mention that the BeeBeeBee reference
> is not lost on me. Any
> mention of the 1972 Preakness winner brings back
> memories of his trainer Del
> Carroll. One morning Mr. Carroll went out to the
> track at Keeneland on the
> stakes winner Sportin Life. Sportin Life found his
> way back to the barn alone
> that morning.
>
>       I think your obsession with RTR\'s current
> state of perceived overrate
> will come to an anticlimatic end. I think RTR
> contests the CCA, the Alabama
> and the BC Distaff. She probably faces short
> fields in the two NYRA races.I
> think her owners and her trainer are wise enough
> to realize the value of having
> her retire undefeated against colts.
>
>      You are gloating for the wrong reason. You
> are the TG board\'s answer to
> Leon Rasmussen and Federico Tesio. Your only gloat
> should be that the animal
> best bred for 1- 1/2 got the job done.
> (Admittedly, Hard Spent\'s pedigree was
> arguably equally admirable for 1-1/2)