Upon further review of the literary work compiled last week by TGAB as the ROTW, it seems my comments mentioning \"awful grammar and spelling\" were a bit of hyperbole.
Having been spoiled by TGAB\'s normal high standard in the ROTW, including the use of many vocabulary words that I have never heard of before, I feel that last week\'s literary rendition fell short of the usual mark. That said, the handul of spelling mistakes and omitted words doesn\'t fall to the level of \"awful\".
I apologize.
TGAB, thanks for pointing out the callousness of my remarks....
After all, even with all the spelling mistakes and omitted words, the document was still MUCH more accurate than the California figures... :)
Spelling,smeshelling. How bout race shapes having Awesome Gem second \"fastest\" to the quarter, beyond absurd.
Mike
I don\'t know about \"smeshelling\", based on recent races, I could see Awesome Gem coming out near the front on race shapes, even though I am sure most of us didn\'t expect him near the lead. (he ran in some faster paced races)
Jim
Jim,
You or anyone on this board arguing splits/internals, race shapes etc with me is like some high school football coach debating defensive strategy with Bill Belichick.
Mike
Thank you, Jim. And I will do a better job proofreading.
You have a very selective memory, Mike. You raised this exact issue here BEFORE a race at Mth a year or two ago, and the RS were exactly right, and you were exactly wrong. But hey, Belicheck isn\'t perfect either.
\"You have a very selective memory, Mike. You raised this exact issue here BEFORE a race at Mth a year or two ago, and the RS were exactly right, and you were exactly wrong. But hey, Belicheck isn\'t perfect either\".
JB,
Don\'t remember the race but do recall that abberation.Any formula which considers ground loss and a few pounds of weight at the distance of 2f is flawed on 99 different racing levels. That is not to say the fastest horse early, as per race shapes,is not,app 70% of the time.Examined over a 3 month period for NY races.
Mike
\"That is not to say the fastest horse early, as per race shapes,is not,app 70% of the time.\"
What, exactly, are you saying here, Miff?
it\'s WRONG 30% of the time!
\"it\'s WRONG 30% of the time!\"
Race Shapes are based on an average of the last three adjusted quarters. You will get a lot better by digging deeper into the information provided. They do not take into consideration all the things a handicapper will take into consideration when he is trying to figure out who will take the early lead. More important, making pace figures is like making final-time figures for races in which riders are stiffing their horses. And yet, at a GLANCE, they give you the \"right\" answer 70% of the time? Sounds as if they were invented by the guy who created Belichick.
\"Race Shapes are based on an average of the last three adjusted quarters\"
Rich,
You don\'t get it.A few pounds of weight and ground loss are irrelevant at 2f. Yeah about the three race average but no about the relevancy of parts of the formula.Forgetting all the extraneous BS(gate trouble, intention et al)The speed of the speed is pretty clear a fair amount of time and in such cases, race shapes is correct.
You being a pace guy, check CJ\'s pace figs against TG Race Shapes for a few months and post the honest findings.Incidentally,don\'t tell me that race shapes was not intended to be a quasi form of pace figures.
Mike
\"Incidentally,don\'t tell me that race shapes was not intended to be a quasi form of pace figures.\"
Of course they were, to the 1/4. My point in making an analogy between pace figures and final-time figures for fixed races is that pace figures put you at the mercy of jockeys. In other words, this is tricky business.
\"You being a pace guy, check CJ\'s pace figs against TG Race Shapes for a few months and post the honest findings.\"
I like CJ\'s work a great deal, and I have a ton of respect for his knowledge of the subject. However, he is not Thoro-Graph. He has carved out an entirely different niche for himself. And he has stated, in writing, that he has more or less given up on trying to predict the early pace because he finds it too difficult--largely because of jockey strategy. You are extremely confused, Miff. If CJ\'s numbers are correctly predicting the early leader, then he is doing something wrong, because his pace figures are designed to do something else entirely: reflect the degree to which the pace at which a horse ran allowed him to run his best final time. CJ is super at this. But he is playing a different game.
\"A few pounds of weight and ground loss are irrelevant at 2f.\"
Is weight relevant from a standing start? Have you thought this through? As for geometry, I\'m not quite as casual as you when it comes to posting it right out of existence.
Rich,
You got way off point.This was about Race Shapes accuracy in kinda predicting how the horses would line up based on their early speed, again extraneous BS aside.
There is no scenario on this earth where Awesome Gem can outrun the horses that laid one, two on Sat.However the formula arrived at that is WRONG!!!
1.Again,standing, sitting or in between a few pounds of weight will NOT alter the finish of a 2f race between two dead equal runners. From 10 jockeys or more who rode thousands of races,the effect of weight is relevant at the onset of exhaustion,NOT before. A 2f all out sprint does not qualify for a few pounds of weight being relevant. We won\'t go into the fact that all horses do NOT possess exact weight carrying capabilities and the effect of a weight spot is a best guess scenario. No debate less weight is always preferable but may not ALWAYS be relevant(one length) depending on weight carrying ability of the animals involved.
2.I stated to leave extraneous BS out of the equation. We are looking to identify the speed of the speed.Sharp data out there measures that by looking at only a few things for an eighth. Track speed,wind direction/velocity,run up, all else out of the formula, very excellent when extraneous BS not in play.
3.Re geometry, most one turn races at major tracks are straightaways for 2f and the angling over from outside to inside is very marginal re extra distance travelled,minuscule ground loss irrelevant.
Two turn races different depending on how fast the turns come up AND the adjusted speed/path which the turn is being run. Pssst, don\'t tell anyone that travelling around the first turn at breakneck speed vs crawling around it is NOT the same,the extra distance, of course, is constant, but the difference is night and day to the whole number but \"scored\" the same re ground loss.Thats the time when you pickle the geometry theory that all ground loss is equal.
Have a nice day Rich!
Mike
\"You got way off point.\"
Actually, what happened is that I picked up your CJ point, and then you decided you didn\'t want to discuss it further. But that\'s OK. In the interests of wrapping this up, I will confine myself to the points you want to discuss:
\"Again,standing, sitting or in between a few pounds of weight will NOT alter the finish of a 2f race between two dead equal runners. From 10 jockeys or more who rode thousands of races,the effect of weight is relevant at the onset of exhaustion,NOT before.\"
These 10 nameless jockeys who probably don\'t even know how much they themselves weigh but have somehow managed to make themselves experts on the subtle effects of a few pounds on adjusted fractions? They are trumped by my 11. Nobody is going to beat me when it comes to enlisting nameless jockeys in a cause so noble.
\"Re geometry, most one turn races at major tracks are straightaways for 2f and the angling over from outside to inside is very marginal re extra distance travelled,minuscule ground loss irrelevant.\"
Please tell me what this has to do with your point. Do you think Thoro-Graph adjusts Race Shapes too much for the groundloss on straightaways?
\"We are looking to identify the speed of the speed.Sharp data out there measures that by looking at only a few things for an eighth\"
Nameless data? What\'s next? Nameless horses?
\"Pssst, don\'t tell anyone that travelling around the first turn at breakneck speed vs crawling around it is NOT the same,the extra distance, of course, is constant, but the difference is night and day to the whole number but \"scored\" the same re ground loss\"
True, to my mind, for how first-turn groundloss combines with pace to affect the final figure, but utterly irrelevant to this discussion.
\"There is no scenario on this earth where Awesome Gem can outrun the horses that laid one, two on Sat.\"
Funny how these opinions tend to be expressed more forcefully when one no longer has to fear being contradicted by the running of the race.
Funny how these opinions tend to be expressed more forcefully when one no longer has to fear being contradicted by the running of the race.
Rich,
You were not party to the discussion BEFORE the race re Awesome Gem on race shapes, shared by 5 posters on this board. I don\'t look at it but those who do brought up the subject.
Am certain TG is well aware of no real measurable ground loss on straightaways however a fair amount of Awesome Gem type\'s show up in sprints too on Race Shapes.
Mike
\"You were not party to the discussion BEFORE the race re Awesome Gem on race shapes, shared by 5 posters on this board. I don\'t look at it but those who do brought up the subject.\"
I don\'t see how this makes any difference at all. I\'m not building up my own pre-race opinion. Feel free to consider it as wrong as wrong can be. Makes no difference to me. I\'m defending something (Race Shapes) that is always on record before the race, that will be on record before future races, and that was wrong before the race in question. By the way, if you want to see \"WRONG,\" go to Formulator and look at Moss for this race. Predicting early leaders based purely on previous fractions is extremely difficult.
\"Am certain TG is well aware of no real measurable ground loss on straightaways however a fair amount of Awesome Gem type\'s show up in sprints too on Race Shapes.\"
OK, let\'s look at this more closely. You are concerned that a router who raced wide against a slow opening quarter will look too fast on Race Shapes when he switches to a sprint? This is your concern?
Rich,
My only concerns right now:
Whether the favorable 5lb weight shift in favor of Unzip Me vs Separate Forest and 2 lbs vs Broken Dreams is reason enough to stand with her in tomorrow\'s pick 6 at Holly.
Also do I need Kingpin Ryno and Madeoftherightstuf or can I get brave and stand with Kingpin Ryno,very wide into reasonably fast-ish early split,his race not nearly as bad as it looks......hmmmm
Damn I\'m off point!!
Mike
Very good, Miff. And my only concern, even further off topic, is whether JB will have the guts to show up for our Springsteen trivia contest at Del Mar--with poster BB/Magicnight writing the questions (probably with some help from his wife).
The contest was off the moment you said you were going to study for it. What the hell is that? What\'s that got to do with being a fan?
I was in a bar a while back when \"I Had Too Much To Dream Last Night\" came on. I turned to the 20 something girl sitting next to me and said, who did this song? She gave me a bored look, pulled out her phone, held it up to the speakers, pulled it down, and read the screen. \"Electric Prunes\". A lifetime of arcane knowledge, completely worthless.
So you can use a search engine, so what. I was there New Year\'s Eve in Cleveland, 78-9, when they were throwing cherry bombs at the stage and one blew up in front of Bruce\'s face. The band walked off, he made them come back, and finished the show with a band-aid on his face. Stick that up your trivia contest.
Meanwhile, the nameless jockey post was pretty funny.
Study? What I said was that I would glance at some old lyrics on the two-hour train ride because I\'m at my best only in the Darkness-Nebraska-River period. If I studied, Springsteen himself wouldn\'t have a chance against me.
Surely you don\'t begrudge me doing a little something to make up for the monstrous difference in our ages?
Tell you what. Let\'s have a Guns N\' Roses contest and I won\'t have to glance at any old lyrics.
You guys are on the honors system -- no search engines, please. Free drink at Del Mar during the second week of the meet to the first correct answer. Song title and album, please:
The moon is high and here I am
Sittin\' here with this hammer in hand
One more drink oughta ease the pain
Starin\' at that last link in the chain
Well let\'s raise our glass and let the hammer fly
The age difference works in your favor. I may have literally forgotten more about this than you know.
Guns And Who?
Caradoc -- you could throw in this one for extra credit:
...and after naming the song title / album for the lyrics shown...name the OTHER Springsteen album that came out on the very same day.
Long Goodbye....Human Touch Album
Rick: Excellent idea. Hopefully not a dead giveaway, because he released two CD\'s on one day only one time, right?
Well done. I owe you a drink. Now for the extra credit?
Ha! Glenlivet 12 on the rocks. Extra Credit? Of course....
Yes, that was the only time Springsteen did it. Not much chance of \"giving away\" the answer, as the marketplace issued a collective yawn to both albums upon their release. Some of the public and more of the Springsteen faithful warmed up to both after awhile, but by then the significance of the common release date was forgotten.
In an odd coincidence, only a few other bands had done such a thing back then -- one being Guns and Roses! (Use Your Illusion I and Use Your Illusion II)
Hey, who said the TG Forum *doesn\'t* have a wealth of washed-up, aging hipsters?
Rick: The lukewarm reaction to Human Touch was unfortunate; there are some really great bits there. Not that it is on the same level as Darkness, but still. \"Real World\" (with the equally great Sam Moore singing behind him) could have been a Springsteen classic but something went wrong somewhere.
Back to handicapping . . .
..ok...I think the extra credit question may have been in this post from Rick. So that was Lucky Town and Human Touch released on the same day.
Have grown to really like Lucky Town over the years and Human Touch has a few that have stood the test of time. Specifically, the title track, which, like a lot of Springsteen\'s material is on another level when performed live.
Rick B = hipster ??? Sorry
Rick B = washed up ??? Possible, but can still handicap !
U want washed up ?
Go a few blocks west from your house to some of my old Cicero & Berwyn haunts.
I guarantee some of the same bar stools are occupied by the same asses since I left there in 89 !!!!
What weekend are you Saratoga bound this year ?
Frank D.
P-Dub,
You are OBVIOUSLY not an equal opportunity critic. After reading this chain, it is very clear to me that Rich Curtis is the one who is truly deserving of being \"Jerry\'s Boy\".
From now on, I would prefer that you refer to me as \"Allan\'s boy\", instead.
Thanks,
Jim
Hah! Should have said \"former\" hipster. I used to have hair down past my shoulders, went to hundreds of live shows and clubs, burned the candle at both ends every day for years on end with the music cranked to 11 and had to peek out the curtains in the morning to see if the car found its way home (again). Don\'t let my current state of disrepair fool you -- I was actually somewhat \"cool\" once.
Shooting for the 2nd week of August for Saratoga. Lots of our regular crew are backing out this year. Nobody wants to say it, but the economy has a fair number of folks pretty nervous...and for damned good reasons.
jimbo66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
it is very clear to me
> that Rich Curtis is the one who is truly deserving
> of being \"Jerry\'s Boy\".
That\'s like according teacher\'s pet status to Holden Caufield or Ferris Bueller.
Thank goodness it\'s off! I\'m the one who would really have had to study, as I spent most of Springsteen\'s career driving in smoke filled foreign cars listening to \"Live at the Fillmore East\".
If it ever comes to pass I\'ll lean heavy on Rick B, Caradoc and Jack, who could write much better questions, I\'m sure. They\'d probably know the answers, too!
jimbo66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> P-Dub,
>
> You are OBVIOUSLY not an equal opportunity critic.
> After reading this chain, it is very clear to me
> that Rich Curtis is the one who is truly deserving
> of being \"Jerry\'s Boy\".
>
> From now on, I would prefer that you refer to me
> as \"Allan\'s boy\", instead.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jim
Jimbo:
As someone who has watched and listened to you ride TGAB like a rented mule the
past couple of years at the seminar, I would say that \"Allan\'s Boy\" hardly seems
appropriate.
BB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thank goodness it\'s off! I\'m the one who would
> really have had to study, as I spent most of
> Springsteen\'s career driving in smoke filled
> foreign cars listening to \"Live at the Fillmore
> East\".
You have tremendous good taste there, my friend -- the lore is that was by far Dickie Betts finest performance, ever.
Here\'s a bunny rabbit for you:
Inspired by the performance from the above-mentioned live recording, Rolling Stone in 2007 named this song one of the Top 50 Songs Over Seven Minutes Long.
Can you name it?
Jimbo wrote:
\"From now on, I would prefer that you refer to me as \'Allan\'s boy\', instead.\"
You have no chance, Jimbo, because I\'m angling for that role too, and I know how to spell Alan\'s name.
Given what I\'m figuring is a \"Betts\" hint, I\'ll guess \"In Memory of Elizabeth Reed\". He was great, but I was always partial to Duane\'s playing.
magicnight Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
He was great,
> but I was always partial to Duane\'s playing.
Ditto that one. It was hard to get much better than when he and Clapton got together.
Well, fair point Richiebee.
But in my defense, TGAB has been \"living off\" that 47-1 shot he gave out 4 summers ago in the seminar. (which everybody at the seminar but yours truly used)
In this \"what have you done for me lately world\", TGAB is \"overdue\" for a seminar with a bunch of winners.....
Jim
Thank you, Richiebee.
I knew I\'d hear about the 47-1 shot. I was put on notice last summer that the bank had run dry of the currency that mention generated. Obviously 4-1 shots only raise the water level big-toe high.
But that raises an analysis point to reiterate--I mentioned that horse (I forget the name) kind of as an afterthought. The context was that I liked the horse, pattern-wise, in its previous run and it didn\'t run and I\'d noticed that these types (positive current patterns that misfired) not infrequently run the race I thought they\'d run, one race later and this might be such a horse. It was worth a few bucks at a good price.
The moral is that if you identify horses with positive patterns and they misfire, put them in Thoro-Track, and at least take a look at them next time around. You might get your money back and then some.
On another note, \"In Memory of Elizabeth Reed\" hits me right in my youdt as cousin Vinny would say. I used to look askance at my mom when she recollected about Nelson Eddy and Jeanette MacDonald. Old. But Liz there is 40 years plus, now. Phew. Still great, though.
Yes, Rich my name is spelled Alan and I appreciate that you got it right. And let me say unabashedly, like the government representatives on Capitol Hill I can be lobbied.
TGAB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> On another note, \"In Memory of Elizabeth Reed\"
> hits me right in my youdt as cousin Vinny would
> say. I used to look askance at my mom when she
> recollected about Nelson Eddy and Jeanette
> MacDonald. Old. But Liz there is 40 years plus,
> now. Phew. Still great, though.
Not to be snobbish, but the Allman Brothers Band catalog has stood up quite well to the test of time -- much better than anything from Nelson Eddy, needless to say -- and is *still* picking up new fans 40+ years later. That is STRONG...damn near Beatles / Elvis strong. Think about it.
Number 2 son (age 24, full-time chef, part-time guitar player) heard Elizabeth Reed for the first time a few weeks ago in my car and said, \"Who the hell is this?\"...then called me later that night and played what he had noodled out on my PRS Santana (now his -- I never could play the damn thing) via phone. \"I can\'t believe I\'ve never heard this before\", he said.
(Yeah, Bob, because you have a rotten father. Luckily, you have your mom\'s fingers, instead of my stumpy sausages...and a good ear.)
Rich,
I thought you were making a good case for race shapes.
However, I thought you were a wee bit \"over the top\" when you suggested we rebrand U.S. paper currency with \"in race shapes we trust\" instead of \"in God we trust\".
Just my view...
Jimbo,
I first started pushing for Thoro-Graph to make pace figures back in about 2000, and I\'d push every year after that, to the point where it became a running joke between JB and me.
I always thought it ironic that the people who were best-equipped to make pace figures (TG and Rags) were the least interested in pace. Anyway, JB would respond that they had experimented with pace figures and the results were a mess because of individual race strategy, jockey rating, etc. (And Ragozin apparently had the same problem, because he said he would be making pace figures, but he never followed through.) I would then respond that there would always be extreme messiness in pace figures for just those reasons, but they were worth making anyway.
That\'s the background. Now, after the Race Shapes were \"wrong\" about Awesome Gem, do you think it would have been proper for me to, say, skip off to a Mediterranean island and wash my hands of everything?
Finally, if you think I was over the top somewhere, please give me an example.
Rich,
Was a joke. I guess a poor one, since I am explaining it!
Jim
Great story Rick. It\'s good to hear things like that in an era where full \"albums\" no longer mean anything. It\'s all about the singles these days. Not to take anything away from the many talented artists out there, but it it was it is.
About a year ago I saw Billy Bob Thornton interview with Bill Maher. BBT was telling a story about a conversation that he was having with a young 20 something assistant to the assistant... The subject of music came up and after she rattled off a number of one hit wonders, he asked her to name any band/artist that started after 1983 that we\'ll be talking about in 30 years.
It\'s a great conversation starter anywhere....
speaking of Springsteen Boss!! (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/post/Boss-Pitcher-identified-from-Bruce-Springsteen-?urn=mlb-wp12269)
Thanks, Rick. With all this I had to listen to most of the album when I got home from work today. It will never get old.
\"It was hard to get much better than when he and Clapton got together.\"
Yep! In particular (for me, anyway) the last few minutes of \"Layla\" and all 4 minutes and 41 seconds of \"Why Does Love Have to be so Sad?\".
As far as what we\'ll still be talking about in 30 years, that was what they said about Elvis in 1956 too....he and rock and roll were just a passing fad. Same thing they said about the Beatles in 1964. So it\'s sort of hard to say what we\'ll be talking about in 30 years, and the older generation always thinks today\'s music is crap.
Agree with you. I think a lot of the music today is just garbage but then again my parents and uncles thought the music I listened to was crap. It\'s all nostalgia for every generation. You attach the songs you grew up with to the defining moments in your life and make them \"the greatest song ever\"... I still think Knocking on heavens door (Reggae version) is one of the greats because I caught one of the hottest girls in the club while that song was playing.
I played Hootie and the Blowfish for my younger brother (23) the other day and he laughed at me..meanwhile I love their songs..
I never said that I thought today\'s music was \"crap\". Go back and read the part where I recognized that there are a lot of talented people out there today.
The question proposed was name anyone who started after 1983 (28 years ago) that we\'ll be talking about 30 years from now. REM is probably one of only a handful of artists/bands that comes to mind.
jma11473 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As far as what we\'ll still be talking about in 30
> years, that was what they said about Elvis in 1956
> too....he and rock and roll were just a passing
> fad. Same thing they said about the Beatles in
> 1964. So it\'s sort of hard to say what we\'ll be
> talking about in 30 years, and the older
> generation always thinks today\'s music is crap.
Ed Sullivan and (especially) Sinatra were wrong about
a few future trends . . .