Will miss 60 days training with a chip in the knee.
So, who exactly did GoldenCents beat in the SA Derby? Flashback racing with a sore knee?
Thread,
Can be said about most point preps. At least in Goldenscents case, he vied for the lead all the way,in fast splits,and stayed well late.From a pure speed figure perspective, it\'s the fastest point prep.Performance kinda came out of nowhere, hard to gauge but undoubtably fast.
Mike
Yeah, I was shocked when Flashback didn\'t go right by. This makes sense. Thanks for posting.
Only thing I can knock about the SA winner is too big a jump up in April and he\'s a puller.Kriegger had his hands full keeping that horse sitting off Super99.
Other than that can\'t see how you can knock Goldencents race.
Big,
SA surface was fast and speed favoring also, still a big performance.Goldenscents also pulls during his morning gallops, thats just him.
If he gets to the Derby he will go in looking bounce but will sport fastest fig in a point prep so far.
Mike
I won\'t be done with that day for a couple of days, but after a fast look I can say with confidence:
Not hardly.
Tread,
Assume that since you post here, u \"get\" speed figures and the dynamics that go with them.
As pointed out by Miff and others, Goldencents Santa Anita Derby was very fast, period. Stalked a fast pace, opened up on the turn, handled Flashback easily and there was a huge gap back to 3rd. The race was also fast on the clock. Got a 105 beyer. We will see what TGJB did.
He did the opposite of what your horses Verrazano and Normandy Invasion did, which is run slow, the former doing it with a trip from heaven. The latter gets some credit for being off the slow pace and trying to close into it.
That doesn\'t mean Goldencents will want 1 1/4 or be a good bet in the Derby. That is a different story.
But criticizing what was likely the best or 2nd best Major Derby prep is just silly.
That is ominous and not in a good way.
I can see a Stevie Wonderboy post soon.............
Fastest of the 100-pointers, maybe. Not sure if it was quicker than the Holy Bull.
\"I won\'t be done with that day for a couple of days, but after a fast look I can say with confidence:
\"Not hardly\"
..Ahem,thats because you had the top two in the SA derby too slow to start with, you know, its the old TG is slower than Beyer out there in Cali(your words also)
Yep another slow TG fig in California, wadda know.
Yep, that\'s it. Over and over. Euros too, ask anybody.
JB,
Euros quite a different story.Dont have the time or the inkling but there is an old string here about a time when MANY Cali shippers were coming East and outrunning their TG West Coast figs, new topsoften,pre synth.It was not selective at all.
From distant memory,may be wrong, Squirtle Squirt comes to mind and others around that time.
Anyone recall?
Mike
AJ,
Yes, the Holy Bull was very fast, did not include the early 50 pointers or Verranzanos allowance win.
Mike
It\'s funny, after the way the Baffert horses ran at the BC I was thinking of making the Cali figures slower.
Here\'s a thought. Rather than cherry picking results that fit your theory (Squirtle Squirt? Really?), go through the archives on this site. In the TC and BC races, take the Cali horses vs the other horses, and break them down into new tops, pairs etc. If you\'re right the Cali horses should get an awful lot of new tops.
And that doesn\'t even factor in the synth/dirt angle.
Yeah SS and several others maybe the same day, honestly dont recall exactly.You keep saying cherry pick, not the case, would never do that.BC,really,when many are raced out, over the top.You expect tops there, save maybe the lightly raced young ones, I wouldn\'t expect it though possible.
Hey, whatever floats your boat.Gave a good joke for you, the Wood was faster than the SA Derby,funny?
Mike
In no particular order; A grade III winner, a colt off six months, a claimer, a horse that just broke his maiden, a state bred maiden winner and a no chance box seat horse! bbb
I haven\'t done either final figure but roughly speaking they look about the same.
\"I haven\'t done either final figure but roughly speaking they look about the same\"
JB,
Obviously, what I was inferring because you have the Cali circuit slower than Beyer going in, has to come out the way you say.
Mike
To basically shorten this nonsense:
Mike, you said exactly one right thing. Beyer has California too fast. Ragozin has the sprints too fast out there, but (as a generalization) not the routes. A good example of all this came recently when Joyful Victory ran at SA and won. Her owner, who uses Ragozin, called here scratching her head-- Beyer had given her a 107, Ragozin had given her a 9. As you know, if you translated them both to our stuff that would be a negative figure against about a 5. In fact she had run a 1-- exactly what she had run at FG-- and the California fillies in the race fit tight with her running that. Both Beyer and Ragozin had it wrong by quite a bit, in opposite directions (this time).
JB,
Last post. Focus on the SA Derby which is rock solid TG 0 or-1/2. The 3rd and 4th horses that run in the 3-4 range were beaten by 10+lengths(like 6-7 points) How slow did the 3rd and 4th place finishers run for the Winner to only get like what 2. How does that manke any sense and realistically reflect the performance of the winner?
Mike
Like I said I haven\'t finished with the SA day but a) where does it say the Wood winner ran a 2 (I just did it and he ran faster, and given the figures of the top three it was OBVIOUS he ran faster before I did it), and b) there\'s another route on the SA card to work with as well. We\'ll see.
But the larger point is-- WTF DO YOU THINK WE\'RE DOING HERE? You cherry pick a couple of horses, not working with wind, weight and ground, and want to potshot people who spend all their time on this and use computers to do track to track analysis? Without even waiting to see what we did? We\'re f---ing pros, knock it off. I have an overhead in 7 figures and work 320 days a year doing this stuff. Nobody has ever done it as well, even working at it with ALL the data, full time. There is not a single angle on this you could possibly come up with that we haven\'t thought of and checked out already-- including looking at other people\'s figures and knowing their tendencies.
You have no idea what I know, what I use and how long I\'ve being doing this. There is NO chance you have perfected conversion data TG/RAGS/BEYER as I have.
I dont cheery pick, when I have an issue,I ask. From now on I won\'t.
I have to say I have a ton of respect for what you do.....but I also do with the sheet guys....I just dont get the constant bashing of their numbers, like TG is never wrong....were all human...again not isolating a horse, but since you claim sheet west coast sprints are wrong, I recall amazombie in the 2011 BC sprint looking very strong on the sheets, and too slow in the TG seminar.....and I know I pointed a race in private that was wrong by your own admission....it just seems a waste of energy to bash their numbers as well as them yours...I like both products and neither is flawless.
A) anyone can get a figure wrong, and b) any individual result can make someone look bad even if you got it right-- it\'s a game of percentages. But when you look at very large data samples certain things become clear, EVEN WITHOUT LOOKING AT OTHER DATA.
If you look at Ragozin\'s BC figures you will see right away that the horses running in sprints got a far higher percentage of tops than those that ran in routes relative to the figures they had previously earned ON RAGOZIN in all parts of the country. That was just the latest indication of a point I have made here for 10 years about their Cali sprint figures-- strictly by comparing them to other Ragozin figures. (I first noticed the problem by seeing constant differences with ours in one direction, but the way to prove it to Ragozin guys is by comparing them to other Ragozin figures, where it\'s clear if someone actually looks).
Having said that, the point of the original comment wasn\'t Ragozin, it was about Beyer\'s Cali figures, AND THAT WE KNOW WHAT\'S GOING ON. This isn\'t something we do in our spare time.
TGJB has already covered many of the points I would raise in a response. I was expecting after the Wood results were raised and the SA results lowered (in terms of raw time to actual performance) that the results would be about even and am completely missing all the superlatives on the SA performance. I could care less how Beyer scored the race.
Front-end victories over extremely glib surfaces are among the trickiest races to work with. You said it was \"fast\", period. What makes it \"fast\"? The time? So are we saying the same thing about Governor Charlie, just because his time was fast? To not recognize the difference in surface and conditions and those play into the raw times is apparently something many people do not think about, not sure why.
Do you think Goldencents would have run the same fractions and time were he able to put forth the same effort at AQU? I\'m saying not even close. Could Verrazano have run 1.48 over the Santa Anita track? I don\'t have any reason to think he couldn\'t given the way he responded to a 45 and 109 split over a similar glib Gulfstream surface earlier this year. What\'s different is, he\'s now run over both glib and more tiring surfaces, with different pace scenarios, and it doesn\'t matter.
The race prior, the Santa Anita track was actually pretty deep and closers had a much fairer chance. Goldencents responded horribly to that track type, and someone like TizAMinister looked good and got close. TAM had no real reason to bounce last weekend, but still looked poorly. I\'m blaming that on track bias, not performance.
And factoring in that Flashback was hurt and likely at least feeling some of the impact during the race and Super99, a horse with pretty clear distance limitations, still finishing in the money, this raises some big question marks for me as to whether or not the time was the result of the surface or a really huge effort from the horse, not to mention the overall quality of that field.
A dominating victory over a extremely speed-favoring surface defeating a weak field does very little for me, neither here nor in the case of Governor Charlie.
Tread,
Not sure how long you have posted here, but I have for years and years. Fast = variant adjusted fast. Only idiots and neophytes to horse racing look at raw times.
As for the rest of your post. It is clear to me one of the fundamental differences we have, you don\'t seem to factor pace at all into your analysis. You want to say track bias was the deciding factor in why Tiz a Minister ran well last time out and not this time. And the same for Goldencents. I won\'t call it silly, or worse, but it is short-sighted. They went 1:09 last time, with three horses fighting for the lead. It wasn\'t the track condition, it was the pace that led to the results of both horses, at least to a large degree.
I don\'t know or care what Verrazano could have run Saturday at Santa ANita. What I feel I know, and will gamble on, is that he should have run faster than 1:50.2, with the trip he got.
As for the figures of the Wood and Santa Anita Derby, I really hope that TGJB means the ground loss adjusted figures are equal and not the figures for the winners before ground loss.
Jim
Jimbo-- You should be able to figure out what the top 3 in the Wood got within a half point without me telling you anything, just by having the sheets going in and seeing those 3 finish close together. The SA I haven\'t done yet but yes, of course I\'m talking about actual TG figures.
Thx for sharing your resume, I\'ve been here lurking since 1998. I\'m fully aware of pace scenarios, I\'ve read Brohammer and all those ridiculous related computer programs where you pick one racing line to try to determine how the horse might run today. I know you are not one of these people, but you would be surprised in places like the comments sections on Bloodhorse and on Twitter how many raw time ppl there are out there. Or maybe you wouldn\'t.
At the stakes level, however, being involved in a pace duel does not mean that the front-end horses have to burn out and that a closer is going to mow them down. Bodemesiter in the Derby last year is a perfect example of that. With your arguments and comparison, no way he finishes in the top 4. But he nearly won it. That is an example of where a truly \"fast\" performance by the horse resulted in something big, not assisted by any pace scenario or glib surface.
When no horse is closing at Santa Anita all day, it is time to ask questions about the surface simply not allowing it vs. pace setups. I\'m not saying the surface is the only reason, but denying it played some kind of a role is being naive.
Incidentally, I love that some people are going to now compare Goldencents to Bodemeister. Not that you are. The two don\'t compare.
You and I are in complete agreement on Verrazano in the Wood.... If there were no wind and the track had proper moisture in it (it assuredly did not due to the sustained winds). Under those conditions, there\'s no way this race is over 1.50 and the time is much more pleasing to the eyes of simpletons who say oooo 1.48 is so much better than 1.50. If he had run that slowly under pristine conditions, you would have every right to bash him. But the fact of the matter is, with that slow pace setup and no headwind coming home, all 3 of those horses are running sub12 last 8ths, and looking pretty impressive doing so, if you want to get into hypotheticals.
Concerning Bode and Goldencents, I think the former\'s best number going into the Derby was a 0, which is around what I\'d expect GC got this weekend. So numbers wise, they look pretty close.
Mike,
If your judging GC\'s performance by what he beat (which I don\'t dispute), then you should reconsider your view on Orb\'s FLorida Derby number.
It was the slowest by the clock of the four routes. But he handled Lucky and his huge last-out fig, and demolished Bobby.
Orb was wider and heavier than Cigar Steet. Who did he beat in the Skip Away? A horse that got a rail trip coming off a last-out 0. And he crushed Golden Ticket off his graded-stakes placed 0.
Who did Ciao Bella easily beat? A horse that romped a GP allowance by 17 lengths. And CB beat the show horse by 16 - a horse that exited a win in the Sunshine Millions Distaff. (Orb also wider and heavier).
And of course, Julia thumped Live Lively who won a graded-stakes going a mile a 1/16th in 1:42.3.
All this says there were four really big efforts at GP on Florida Derby day, and Orb\'s was one of them.
AJK-- Translated into figures, that\'s about right. And if DOJ hadn\'t gone nuts, it would be easier for everyone to digest (including some figure makers).
Think about it like this. IF DOJ had won by 10 everyone would be raving about her huge performance.
She ran 6 (SIX) points better than that.
I agree... If I recall 2012 BC the Sheets had the sprint and the turf sprint nailed. I do not play Santa Anita often, only on big days, so I would not know day in and day out how their numbers come up for sprints.. I have used TG and the Sheets and both have had their bad number.. TGJB has a tough and complex job to make numbers as does the others (Sheets). I do not understand TGJB always bashing the Sheets numbers. Who cares what their numbers are if we are using TG.
Bode ran a negative number (which was a 10 length victory) prior to the KYDerby off a 3 and 2 prior and was not beaten more than a length in the route stake he lost. IF GC ran something near a zero (and the figure maker has already cautioned us that people who are guessing and assuming might not be right on), not only will his pattern be more erratic in terms of tops and bounces, but he has already reacted much more adversely to a heavy pace scenario and \"normal\" track that is not so speed favoring, much more so than Bodemesiter ever did.
And that\'s before even getting into a pedigree discussion. But who knows, maybe ONeil will bust out the shockwave therapy again and pull a rabbit out of the hat. But I certainly am not bettin on it given the other horses I see this year. This year\'s field contains more horses with numbers in the 1-2 range than last year and seems markedly better.
Touch gold and beau,
Wondering what businesses u guys are in that you \"don\'t understand\" the need to competitively contrast your own product with the competition.
If it were my company there would be a whole bunch more posts, especially considering the types of guys that run the other company.
I challenge u guys to find a single thread where robes/Len engages a customer with an intelligent debate about figures for a horse or race. They don\'t exist. The figs over there come down from mount Sinai on tablets. And even if they make no sense or the math doesn\'t work on the ground loss, there is no questioning them.
tGJB may have California figs too slow, but at least he discusses it, even if he was bit rude to the soft spoken and mild mannered miff......
Jim
You talking about the Ken Sherman site?
That guy is making me miss chuckles. At least when chuckles was there, he contributed some horse racing knowledge amongst his self gratuitous posting
I used to look over there every few weeks or so to see if there discussions worth reading. I rarely check now, as there just isn\'t anything going on.
I swear, I\'m not Ken Sherman. (Kinda like Spartacus in reverse).
It\'s almost like a conceptual art project. Or a philosophy question. Who is Ken Sherman? Not John Galt, for sure.
The ads about the most interesting man in the world? Not him either.
I trade stocks and work with an investment advisor. Contrasting is fine. .My returns speak for themselves so I dont need to bash fidelity, etc. I will admit I am a little sheet biased, as that was the first product I was introduced to 15 years ago. I have had decent results using both. I will say, hands down, this board, the TG sire data, thoro pattern, and TGJBs ability to advise on the purchases of horses, clearly far superior. I guess one way to look at it, is I m originally from chicago....and while I am a white sox fan, and I am not a cubs hater.
Your returns speak for themselves only if people know about them, and how they compare.
well, what I mean is if I didnt produce, I wouldnt have a job....and a few of our clients came from a well known advisory program which was a chronic underperformer....but in our business and obviously here, % returns speak louder than words....Listen, I am a tiny fish in this pool, so, I ll leave it with both products have had me smiling at the windows and also scratching my head.
touchgold Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I m originally from chicago....and while I am a
> white sox fan, and I am not a cubs hater.
That breed of White Sox fan supposedly doesn\'t exist
here in Chicago anymore -- they hate the Cubs, first
and foremost...oh, and maybe attend a Sox game once
a year. Or not. No wonder you left.
well, I grew up with white sox season tickets...but lived in the city for 20 years...and hands down cubs games way more fun to attend than white sox games....at least when I lived there....kind of like arlington vs hawthorne
By complete coincidence, a post by Friedman just now on the Ragozin board gives another perfect example of the problem they have with their Cali sprint figures being too fast. He says that on their stuff Flashback ran a number first time out (in a sprint) that he has never gotten back to, meaning they have him running worse in the SA Derby than in his debut.
We have him 4 1/2, 4 1/2, 3 1/2, 2 1/2. The last three are routes. Beyer has him running a 10 point top in the SA Derby (equal to 3 of ours or Ragozin\'s). I will guarantee you Ragozin (Friedman) is the only figure maker anywhere having that horse\'s debut as his best effort-- which is clearly nuts.
Is it remotely possible that Ragozin had him going back his last 3 and now the horse is hurt that the reason he was backing up (on their numbers) was that he was a hurt horse.?Think about that.
TGJB what do you think about the flashback injury as it relates to his figures?
Vito-- you\'re a nice guy, but...
The point is that the problem isn\'t confined to that horse. I\'ve been talking about it for years, and in fact did so here yesterday-- this was just the latest example, I brought it up because of yesterday\'s conversation.
One horse can do anything. This is not that. But also, does it make sense to you that the horse ran a bigger figure in that maiden race than in the SA Derby, where he was 8 clear of the third horse? Or that he earned a much better figure for that maiden win than Joyful Victory got for GI win out there (a distance race)? Only on Ragozin-- nobody else has those races anything like that.
You could make the case the big effort (top) last time hurt him. Or you could say it\'s a coincidence-- Miff would agree with that.
First of all Baffert has a history of getting huge numbers first time out and this horse was no exception.I could give you a list but you know that\'s a fact.What I am saying is that it\'s kinda funny that the horse keeps going backward(on their sheets) and the next thing you hear is that he is hurt.I am saying that the possibility exists that he was not the same horse this year.
There\'s also the \"possibility\" that those huge first outs they don\'t get back to are because they\'re running in sprints then and routes later-- Ragozin has abouta 4 point error in his sprint/route relationships. If you add 2 to the sprints and take 2 off the routes it will look different-- like it does on accurate figures made by others.
Touch,
As a displaced New Yorker for 6 plus years through the 80\'s in Lincoln Park; No doubt Cubs games were the more social event hands down. Something about sunning in the bleachers, beers & bouncing breasts all of which had very little to do with baseball made for a great day!
Now let me make Rick B. & Topcat melt: I would have taken the 5/8ths bull ring at Sportsmans hands down over any Chicago area track. I learned more about trips and track bias there than anywhere else by a mile.
\" Here they come spinning out of the turn\"
Good luck,
Frank D.
I respectfully disagree.
Your perogative. But just for the helluvit-- did you keep Ragozin\'s BC 2012 sheets? If so, pencil in the number they ran that day (available on their site as you know) on their sheets. See how many sprinters get tops and near tops, and how few routers. Dirt only.
I will do that and get back to you,no problem.
Vito,
You seem like much too nice of a guy for this board. Polite and respectful. You kind of remind me of Miff. You are not also 85 years old, are you?
No not even close but you gave me a good laugh.
jimbo66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vito,
>
> You seem like much too nice of a guy for this
> board. Polite and respectful. You kind of remind
> me of Miff. You are not also 85 years old, are
> you?
I agree this guy is very polite and respectful (and note the sarcasm in relation to Miff), but, how does everybody know this guy\'s name is Vito? He only created this account today and you and TGJB already know his name. Is he somebody famous?
He\'s the last man standing on the Sherman board. Diehard Raggie.
funny....sportsmans park was where I first started playing....too bad the auto track didnt work out....
Ah, Phil Georgeff, \"the voice of Chicago racing\" ... he was a good one! I miss him.
That said, the call of the Wood was simply horrid. He needs to retire.
Vito-- since you brought it up on the Ragozin board (without which I wouldn\'t have known his figures), War Academy is another example of what we\'re talking about. As you said there, on Ragozin his first lifetime race (a sprint, of course) is his best, his last (route) is not as good. Nobody else has it that way-- we have the last equal to his top, Beyer has it much better.
It\'s systemic problem. They have a big problem with the relationship between one and two turn races. Either that or everyone in California runs better sprinting, early on their career.
Let me know if you break down the BC stuff by sprint/route.
With all due respect to Beyer,his numbers have no meaning to me.I play patterns and condition lines.Understand, we have a difference of opinion I believe their numbers and that\'s how I play.Let me ask this question.DON\'t you find that horses that run a number first time out going short,that when they stretch out early in their career they go back,I do.
Sure. But that\'s not the question, the question is whether they actually ran that figure to begin with. And when you have that happening on a regular basis on one circuit, far more than on others, the problem is with the figures-- it\'s not that they went back, it\'s that they didn\'t run that fast to begin with. It\'s that they have the sprints way too fast compared to the routes.
If you sit down with the BC stuff you\'ll see it yourself.
First off I don\'t have the Bc sheets.FOr the sake of argument let\'s say I did and your theory is correct to some degree.On such a small sampling what would it prove.?You would have to look at hundreds and hundreds of sheets to determine if what you say is true.I only brought up what that horse ran to show that his numbers are no better than a 10-1 shot that has a very strong pattern coming in.