There has been a lot of talk on the board about the regression in the Preakness and what it really means and whether he could bounce into positive territory now, etc.etc.
And I preface this question by saying that I know I am backtracking a bit because I posted before the Preakness that I would double my bet against Big Brown in the Belmont if he wins the Preakness. Which, I still may do, but he at least scared me in the Preakness.
Anyway, the question is what IS the number that Big Brown could have won the Preakness with that would make you believe he WOULD win the Triple Crown? He backed up 3.5 points, but won handily. If he had paired up the negative 4.75, with a vigorous ride, would THAT make him more likely to win the Belmont? Three races in five weeks, the first two ridiculously fast and full efforts? I say no.
I don\'t know what others will say, but I am guessing that Jerry will say that no matter what BB did in winning the Preakness, he would be betting against him in the Belmont. Paired, x\'d, new top, whatever. And this doesn\'t make full sense to me.
I look forward to Jerry\'s answer for sure but isn\'t the issue that when you fire a number as big as BB ran in the Derby, you simply shouldn\'t be running back that quick?
Of course I know its the triple crown and of course the horse is going to run but once you run back so quick off a huge number, the wheels are set in motion to start going backwards.
A horse that runs that kind of number should have 8 weeks off. If you run back in 2 weeks, you are very likely going to bounce and if you ran back three weeks after that, you are very likely to bounce again.
So, it\'s not a matter of what a good number in the preakness would have been, it\'s a matter that a horse shouldn\'t be running back that quick after a big number.
That\'s why DoC\'s connections gave him the extra time off after the 0 in the Southwest. Big numbers from young horses require extra time before the next start.
jimbo66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anyway, the question is what IS the number that
> Big Brown could have won the Preakness with that
> would make you believe he WOULD win the Triple
> Crown? He backed up 3.5 points, but won handily.
> If he had paired up the negative 4.75, with a
> vigorous ride, would THAT make him more likely to
> win the Belmont? Three races in five weeks, the
> first two ridiculously fast and full efforts? I
> say no.
anything around \'0\' (negative 1 is ok) and an easy win is not what you wanted to see if you are betting against this guy in the Belmont imo. another huge negative 5 or so, and I would have made him over 50% to bounce badly. after that effort, I make it about 15%. I also make it just 15% that he doesn\'t get the distance (or get it well enough to win).
I guess I make BB about 70% to win the Belmont. at 1-5, I still might have to look elsewhere for a key though.
For my money, the only number that matters in the equation is the 1/9 or 1/5 odds on BB. It\'s horse racing. It\'s 12F. If you\'re playing the race at all, playing against BB is the only play, imo. I may pass altogether.
I have the same problem.
Basically, some people are saying that if he ran fast again in the Preakness it would make him more likely to bounce. However, if he ran slower in the Preakness relative to the Derby, that means he\'s already feeling the effects of the tough campaign and is ready to bounce. There is no figure that satisfies the anti-BB fans.
This is all gibberish to me.
There is a probability associated with horses wearing out as a tough campaign proceeds. But to estimate the chances of BB going south in the Belmont, you have to look at the specifics of his case relative to what\'s typical.
IMO, there\'s no way his slower figure in the Preakness means a thing because he won wrapped up and could easily have run faster. If anything, the choice to gear him down helped his chances of holding his form until the Belmont (even if it\'s just by a very small amount). In addition, I\'m still not convinced his trip in the Derby was nearly as tough as it looked. My view is that this horse is around a negative 3 horse (give or take a little) and is delivering rather consistent high level performances all spring.
The chances of him going off form in the Belmont due to the strains of the campaign are higher than for the Preakness and they were higher in the Preakness than for the Derby, but IMO they are still not very high. He\'s been winning easily, has shown no signs of distress, is eating well, and this is only his 5th start this year, not his 6th or 7th. Many horses peak in their 3rd or 4th start of the year. The 5th start is not really that far into a campaign.
I\'d be way more worried about the 12F than his form cycle because lots of horses don\'t have both the kind of speed that BB has and also have the ability to carry it 12F.
Jimbo. As you know I\'ve been touting BB as a super horse since April. The BB situation is a rare one in that I actually beleive what the connections are saying to be true. Dutrow hasn\'t BS\'d much at all this Spring. What he says will unfold, unfolds. What he says about the horse\'s health and his chances bear fruit. That\'s rarely the case as most connections are blinded by ambition.
But here is my main question for all those trying to beat Big Brown. Why are you SO obsessed with beating this horse in Belmont? I totally understand everyone trying to get him to run out of the money slots in the Derby as there\'s six figure implications to that payoff scenario and maybe even a million dollar hit if you get lucky (see 2005 Derby). But you can beat chaulk 100\'s of times per day. Why is it so imperative that you beat BB in the Belmont with pools that are 50% smaller than Derby Day? Won\'t you find any joy in rooting on a legit TC winner?
I LOVE beating chaulk and false fav\'s. I relish it. I also love watching the great ones do their thing. The Belmont is strictly a watch-only event for me.
Covelj,
You didn\'t answer my question (or perhaps you did). So, you are saying, screw the triple crown, don\'t run back. No matter what he ran, he is a bet against.
Michael D,
Because I EXACTLY agree with you, is why I might skip the Belmont. Running around a \"0\" with seemingly minimal effort is what I DIDN\'T want to see from Big Brown. I think in my pre-preakness post, I said I would triple my belmont bet if Big Brown had to run a negative 3 or so to win the Preakness.
Whether BB wins or loses the Preakness, you won\'t find too many with an informed racing opinion that would call the Preakness a regression,in the true sense of the word, all things considered.Very tough to get a fast fig projecting against slow horses behind him,and a horse geared down.I think he will be better off in the Belmont not having run faster in the Preakness, others see the lighter fig as a sign of being over the top,that may be.
Everyone sees things differently. Someone saw a tired BB??.I saw a horse difficult to pull up afterwards and from one owner \"a fresher horse than the one after the derby\".I think that most of what is being written positive or negative about BB\'s Preakness will be irrelevant on June 7th.
Since they all get beat sooner or later it will be no revealtion if he loses. It will add no credence to the theory that all horses than run fast figs with short spacing figure to off/X,only some do.Sooner or later all theories about the performance of horses are disproven.
Mike
Buck, easy answer
Did you see the pick 4 will pays for the Preakness?
18k to Kentucky Bear who was the second choice.
There\'s a million dollar guarenteed pk 4 ending with the Belmont and if anyone other than BB wins, a $10 pick 4 will produce a 6 digit payout.
Beating the favs on Wednesday at the Big Sandy don\'t produce those kinds of payouts.
In my opinion, that\'s why this is such a big deal.
Jimbo-- first of all, if he had paired up the figure I think he would have been scarier now, because then a 3-4 point bounce from his current level would still have a very good chance to win. That kind of backward move from his Preakness level makes him very beatable (and as I said in an earlier post, I think looking at the race that he could only have run maybe a point faster if asked).
Second of all, this goes to a discussion I had with Elliot Walden about Distorted Humor years ago, which I brought up here in a different context (Denis of Cork passing that Spring race), and which goes to Covello\'s point-- sometimes you are in a situation where there is no good number a horse can run, so if you are managing the horse, you just give him extra time. (In the case of DH, it related to running big at Keeneland, and whether he should run in the Carter or go straight to the Met. They ran in the Carter and lost the Met, though a wet track for the Met caused the debate to be unresolved).
In the TC you can\'t do that. But once BB runs the big race in Kentucky, the clock is ticking. There is no number he can run two weeks later that will make him likely to get back to his top 5 weeks after first running it-- the best shot of that by far is not to run in between. So the guessing game is how far off his top a 1-5 shot will run.
Jimbo,
Of course I understand that they are going to run back given it\'s the triple crown but I think that once you run that big a number in the Derby, there\'s not alot you can do to prevent two big bounces in the ensuing two races given how quick back they are.
the connections can hope (and we as bettors can analyze) that the horse is good enough to win with a bounce in the next two. In the case of the Preakness, that\'s just what happened. He bounced big and won easy. In the case of the Belmont, given where his last number is and given where the competition is coming in, he can\'t bounce again and win which is why this race is so interesting to me.
You know, it occurs to me (and I don\'t want to do the work, maybe somebody else does)-- it would be interesting to know how the horses that ran a new top in the Derby and went back in the Preakness did in the Belmont, figure wise. If nobody else does it, maybe we\'ll do it for my Belmont comments.
JB,
>Jimbo-- first of all, if he had paired up the figure I think he would have been scarier now, because then a 3-4 point bounce from his current level would still have a very good chance to win. That kind of backward move from his Preakness level makes him very beatable (and as I said in an earlier post, I think looking at the race that he could only have run maybe a point faster if asked).<
One question and then I\'ll leave this specific issue alone.
If he had earned a negative 2 or 3 in the Derby and then came back with his negative 1 (H) in the Preakness, would you like his line better?
\"So the guessing game is how far off his top a 1-5 shot will run\"
JB/ALL
Your overlooking the obvious, which is how fast the proven common bunch behind him might run,except for the unknown Casino Drive.Can\'t remember a slower all around Belmont field.All I keep hearing about is what BB maybe won\'t do, nothing about those inconsistent slow, distant challanged, rats he will face.
Mike
Better, yes, like it, no. He would still have that neg 3 1/2 sitting back there, and while his pattern wouldn\'t be healthy, there would be less reason to think the last two would send him reeling.
Miff-- not forgetting at all. That\'s why it matters how far he goes back.
This question for Jerry.
I am not asking you to compare BB to any other Triple Crown winner, but please explain to me how Secretariat, for example, could run the 3 races he ran, arguably breaking track records each time, within a 5 week period.
To say his Derby was not a \'jumping off\' point with a major number would confuse me, given how he ran the race...getting faster each quarter. His Preakness was a tougher race in some respects, given how he circled the entire field on the outside in an early sustained drive.
The Belmont speaks for itself. It was a lightning fast track that day for sure, but.....
Why can\'t BB be assumed to be able to do the same thing? Honest question, not a challenge.
\"...nothing about those inconsistent slow, distant challanged, rats he will face. \"
LOL..the relative field is essential of course, Mike. But we don\'t really know how distance-challenged those slow rats are! Nor for the Big fast Brown Rat.
At 12F a seemingly slow stayer could overtake the speedy one; see Birdstone.
How about the best of both worlds? BB in a runaway and Casino Drive out?
I\'m with you. Always good betting opportunies,but any true horse racing lover
wants and needs a BB Belmont victory.Not to mention horse racing itself.
First of all, there are other horses beside Secretariat that have run big in all three (Real Quiet and silver Charm come to mind). By the way, something I have never seen discussed anywhere, ever, is whether the stinker Secretariat ran in the Wood (then 2 weeks before the Derby) actually helped him by not making him go into the Preakness off two efforts while making his third start in 4 weeks, even before he got to the Belmont. (And nobody sat around coming up with reasons for the Wood, unlike Point Given\'s Derby. It happens).
This discussion would invariably bring us back around to track speeds, and how fast horses in the 70s were actually running. Suffice it to say that while 25 years is a generation for humans, 8-10 is a generation for horses. Secretariat is Jesse Owens. Which does not diminish what either did.
Dud,
Good point on BB having to prove he can get the distance. Re distance you may want to look at the derby replay focusing on DOC and TOE who were looking for a soft place to lie down at the 1/8th pole.Now these two possible contenders have to get an additional quarter mile after hanging going shorter.
Casino Drive has the obvious breeding on paper and now must do it on the track.
Mike
miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Casino Drive has the obvious breeding on paper and
> now must do it on the track.
If you ascribe to the belief of dam-side stamina influence, CD is the safest choice in this regard. And even then, there\'s no assurance that THIS sibling didn\'t get short-shrifted there. But combining Jazil, Rags and his Peter Pan, win or lose in the Belmont, Casino Drive is the better bet. Whatever his post-time odds (5/2 ish?) BBrown\'s action lends all the value to CD.
Mike, you have mentioned DoC struggling in the last 1/8th several times. I just don\'t see that when I watch the replay. He was moving very well right through the wire. I just watched it again.
Not to mention the fact that he had only run 1 race in the previous 7 weeks and so it would have been understandable if he was a little short for the race.
He comes into this with a good number to run back to and he\'s well rested. I think he is dangerous.
I see your point on ToE although he did go wide on the final turn.
\"This discussion would invariably bring us back around to track speeds, and how fast horses in the 70s were actually running. Suffice it to say that while 25 years is a generation for humans, 8-10 is a generation for horses. Secretariat is Jesse Owens. Which does not diminish what either did\"
JB,
A topic for Tuesday during winter.Most of your study/theory concerns valid stuff about the size of the modern horse/ track speed vs the 60\'s, 70\'s horse.
Agree 60\'s humans like Bob Cousy would not be able to play with todays athletes who are much bigger, stronger, faster.Sam Huff at 170 would be thrown around like a rag doll by the 300 lb linemen in pro football.Jesse Owens not nearly as physical big as todays runners.
What you have missed maybe, is that horses like Secretaiat and Dr Fager were physically larger than most of todays horses.Advanced feed, meds,steroids, jugs of today, I\'ll give you, but not size which is the biggest factor in comparing the differnt generations of horses or humans. Track speed then and now I\'ll give you a couple of fifths, in that tracks were regularly scraped on big Saturdays in the 70s\'80\'s and 90\'s.I am unaware that the cushion depth was 2 1/2 inches as you have stated, I know it\'s deeper than that today on most days at most tracks.
I\'ve seen them all back to the mid 60\'s and I believe that no horse ever lived that could outrun Dr Fager, Secretariat by 2 full seconds(10 lengths) as you suggest,only wish I could bet on it.
Mike
Cov,
Watch the filly, 8 Belles to get the correct perspective, she is game to the wire, DOC and TOE are one paced not gaining an inch.It\'s called hanging(TOE more than DOC)
Cov, aside from that how would glean that DOC (a one run closer) will punch big at 12f. You are hanging on his one good fig earned under a perfect set up when he won while running his last half in 49 seconds after a pace meldown(they went 45 change up front, from memory)
Mike
Miff-- the 2 1/2 inch cushion thing is in \"Are Racehorses Getting faster\", came from Porcelli, who looked it up for me. As I discussed there (by memory), 1/2 inch roughly worked out to 1 second at 6f, based on what little I had to work with. That was nowhere near scientific, though.
On the horse size issue-- I\'m the last guy to offer an opinion on those issues. But recent comments (some during the ESPN discussion, some elsewhere) have been that they are bigger, and carry a lot more muscle, both because we are breeding a different type, and because of steroids etc.
I would love for them to have a \"Seventies Day\" where they went back to a 2 1/2 inch cushion, just so we could get a fix on what it means. The horses (and owners) might not like it as much.
JB,
As a general matter, two old timers from a large breeding farm in florida told me that horses are bigger than before but not to the same extent that modern humans have outgrown those of us born in the 50s\' 60\'s and 70\'s.
From all of what I have observed, I think claimers got much faster(i think illegal stuff is why) but graded horses, esp turf runners, just haven\'t shown me that much superiority,fast wise, over the previous generations.In fairness, Dr Fager and Secretariat where freaky fast for their generation and did not represent the norm.
Mike
Once again, my question was not about comparing the horses of different generations (or the times they ran) as much as it was about comparing the situation of running three tough TC races in 5 weeks without an apparent bounce.
Important point about Secretariat: his heart was roughly triple the size of the average thoroughbred heart. Measuring his body would only be part of the equation. I think I read Seattle Slew\'s heart was more than double the average.
As for Secretariat\'s Wood, wasn\'t it muddy that day? And wasn\'t Angle Light a decent mudder? And of course, wasn\'t Lucien Lauren just using the Wood as a prep and tuneup? Surely, Secretariat hadn\'t had the screws tightened at that point.
If he\'s too unusual an example, what about Affirmed who clearly had 3 tough races in the TC. Why doesn\'t he compare to BB in that regard...did he bounce and win?
Alm-- as I said, there are even more recent examples of horses that have run well in all three, so yes, it can be done. But what I\'m saying is that the fact (which we\'ll assume for this conversation) that they run much faster makes it tougher to do it now than it used to be-- the faster they go, the more stress they place on themselves, the more they take out of themselves, and the more likely things are to give way. This is why we are seeing the trend to space out races.
A new question for you miff...our history is similar over the time period you cite...in your opinion, which was the most overrated champion runner during the early part of the era?
Curious to know the thoughts swirling around Secreteriat after running 2 big
efforts(KD AND PREAKNESS) and whether the wise guy fig makers thought his Belmont
was faster or slower than the 2 previous races?
Most of the wise guy figure makers back then were keeping their figures to themselves. Ragozin had him going back to his Derby figure, I wasn\'t making figures then. Looking at it now, I know he probably just paired up the winner and left it at that-- it was the only 2 turn race of the day, short field, the only other horse with real figures broke down.
I have no idea about the figure he got in the Belmont, but in some ways it was by far the easiest of his TC races. Apart from Sham, the other horses were slugs just in for the show position.
Sham didn\'t break down physically during the race, but regressed huge, quitting after roughly 7 furlongs.
Secretariat had the rail most of the way. The track was superfast that day. Forego, I think, broke the track record for 1 and 1/16th earlier on the card. Other near records occured.
Secretariat just galloped around.
Looks like the only Belmont winner to have run a negative # at any time prior to winning the Belmont is AFLEET ALEX.....hmmm
Good Luck,
Joe B.
I think Beyer did some kind of after the fact Secretariat number.Seem to recall Secs Belmont Beyer in the 120\'s?, anyone remember,I could be mistaken.
Mike
miff,
I think it was higher than that. Maybe 138?
Al,
What era? and those things get subjective but the consistently fastest horse I ever saw, weight carried included, was Dr Fager.
Mike
Sounds huge,but the comparison with the 2 prior races is what I\'m after.
miff,
I stand corrected. I just googled it, Beyer gave Secretariat a 139, the highest Beyer ever. I knew it was just an insane number.
Small,
Wow!! I do know that he was using a different scale at that time which has since changed.
Mike
I recall Beyer\'s early books saying that Secretariat routinely ran figures in the upper 120s and then exploded forward in the Belmont.
miff,
If you google Secretariat Beyer Numbers, you\'ll see some other huge numbers for Formal Gold, Groovy (sprint) Artax, etc. Cigar routinely ran 117 -121.
I haven\'t found Secretariat\'s Ky Derby or Preakness Beyers however.
Jerry would have to give Secretariat app. neg -10 if he was making figs and agreed with Beyer.
Mike
When does easy equate to big fig or small fig? Your googling has Beyer at 139?
And the some..
My point being,was the Preakness a regression from the Track record setting
performance in the Derby? If this is the case then wouldn\'t Secretariat\'s line
have suggested \"Bounce\" in the Belmont?
How far did Secretariat bounce in his Belmont win?
Must have been awful.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You know, it occurs to me (and I don\'t want to do
> the work, maybe somebody else does)-- it would be
> interesting to know how the horses that ran a new
> top in the Derby and went back in the Preakness
> did in the Belmont, figure wise. If nobody else
> does it, maybe we\'ll do it for my Belmont
> comments.
I found 8 of them with new tops at CD-then off or x in the Preakness.Not a big deal since I already had the top 4 finishers #\'s charted for the last 16 Belmonts.Easy enough to look up the also ran\'s that made all three legs.
HARD SPUN -1.25 Derby (2.75 pt top)
0 Preakness
2.0 Belmont
MONARCHOS -0.75 Derby (1 pt top)
5.0 Preakness
3.0 Belmont
V.GALLOP 2.25 Derby (2.75 pt top)
4.0 Preakness
2.25 Belmont
W.EMBLEM -0.5 Derby (1.5 pt top)
1.0 Preakness
10.0 Belmont
CAVONNIER 4.5 Derby (2 pt top)
7.0 Preakness
DNF Belmont
WILD GALE 6.0 Derby (3 pt top)
11.75 Preakness
6.5 Belmont
SEA HERO 5.5 Derby (1.5 pt top)
10.25 Preakness
11.25 Belmont
PR.BAYOU 4.25 Derby (3.25 pt top)
6.75 Preakness
DNF Belmont
You got that right covelj70!
From Steve Crist of the DRF come the following Beyer Numbers for horses who have won the first 2 legs of the TC from 1992 to 2008:
Silver Charm 115/118 = 233
Smarty Jones 107/118 = 225
Funny Cide 109/114 = 223
War Emblem 114/109 = 223
Real Quiet 107/111 = 218
Charismatic 108/107 = 215
Big Brown 109/100 = 209
smalltimer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From Steve Crist of the DRF come the following
> Beyer Numbers for horses who have won the first 2
> legs of the TC from 1992 to 2008:
>
> Silver Charm 115/118 = 233
> Smarty Jones 107/118 = 225
> Funny Cide 109/114 = 223
> War Emblem 114/109 = 223
> Real Quiet 107/111 = 218
> Charismatic 108/107 = 215
> Big Brown 109/100 = 209
What is the significance of this? It does not seem relevant to me.
There was no particular significance to it.
Everything you post has significance?
smalltimer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There was no particular significance to it.
> Everything you post has significance?
No offense was intended by my remark. I am certainly guilty of being obtuse plenty of times and am also fine with being called on the carpet about it.
In terms of your post, I cannot understand what you were trying to say by making a reference to adding together two Beyer figures for horses. I have never seen the adding of figures together regardless of who the figuremaker is -- except if somebody was trying to make an average figure (which, as has been discussed here before, has the classic ice and fire problem). Am just curious why that is a good thing to do and what a person can learn from it. I would be happy to be proven dense and to learn something valuable from it.
In terms of comparing Beyer figures to Sheet figures, I think there is no question that any comparisons of Big Brown with other first 2 out of 3 horses show real shortcomings in the Beyers compared to the Sheets. Based on my recollections (which could easily be wrong), I think Big Brown and Smarty Jones really stand heads and withers (?) above the rest in absolute terms.
I agree with you about Dr. Fager...the \'era\' I had in mind is the one we started in...the 60\'s to 70\'s.
Rather than try to be coy about this, I believe Kelso is the most overrated champion of that period.
I loved the horse...saw him run many of the biggest races he won over all the years. Nevertheless, he usually beat nothing and he was often beaten by horses no one remembers today. Gun Bow, Beau Purple, Iron Peg for example.
The subtext of my remark was that I believe Secretariat\'s Derby was probably a far tougher race and far faster race for him, figure wise, not that he bounced in the Belmont. Whether or not he bounced and still won easily, his time that day was influenced by the track condition. The races that day were super-quick. It was stunning. I was there.
I was also there, and I wasn\'t 5 years old ;-)
My question was meant tongue in cheek.
I think there is some significance to it. On Beyer figs, Big Brown is the slowest horse of any of the triple crown horses that have won the 1st two legs, only to lose the third leg.
It could lead credence to the fact that he isn\'t a super horse, the horses he has been beating are tomato cans and maybe a new shooter like Bernardini, I mean Casino Drive, will be very live.
Of course, as TG users, we know that Big Brown is quite a bit faster than Beyer is rating him.