How Fast Was It?

[Michael D.]

OK, thanks for the response Jerry. By the way, do you have any fractions for the race?  

TGJB,

>CH-- not only do we keep track of how much mud is on each horse and jockey, we have a guy go out, scrape it off, put it in a separate pail for each horse, and weigh it. But only at the major tracks. You\'ve never noticed that after a race? <

The point wasn\'t that these things can be measured perfectly. The point was that when the margins double or triple relative to the norm on CERTAIN extremely sloppy tracks, one of several things that could account for it is the amount of mud that\'s getting kicked up onto the horses. So when that kind of thing distorts the figure making process, it may not always mean that certain horses hated the mud just because they finished 3rd beaten 20 lengths. Nor does it mean the 10 length winner loved it and ran a brand new top. I remember you bringing up mud kicked up as an issue in the past. However, I make special note of the sloppy days where the margins were huge vs. the sloppy tracks that produced more typical results. I\'m not sure it helps a lot, but I think it helps occasionally in the interpetation.

>Unrelated-- you will probably be surprised to learn that a guy who is in the running for best active professional horseplayer (and an occasional poster here) asked me yesterday why I go so easy on you.<

I wouldn\'t be surprised at all, though I\'d love to know which poster it is because I\'d like to re-read any insights he had to offer.

I understand I take the discussion of horses, races and performances off TG
and you\'ve asked me not to do that. I think you understand that I can\'t discuss a horse\'s performance within the confines of a TG figure. I need to bring up subjective areas outside the TG scope. I also understand that most of the people \"here\" don\'t agree with me on these subjective things, but I can\'t see how they conflict with the need for high quality figures.  

TGJB and MIFF,

I believe you guys may be arguing past each other.

Without expressing an opinion....

I believe several figure makers made the Pacific Classic faster than TG. On those figures it probably looks more like Super Frolic paired (or close - you get the point) and Perfect Drift then ran slower in the Hawthrone.  The figure that is probably in dispute is the Pacific Classic because the pace was lively and there were only 2 routes that day late in the card that could be used for making the variant.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

I was impressed with Jerry\'s post where he stated he left Perfect Dread out of the top three spots. That was extremely bold from my perspective, but he had weight and wide considerations factored and was right.

Handicapped that race for Dry track and when it went wet I wasn\'t prepared from a wet track handicapping perspective or to bet Super who prior to the rain and fat Espinoza was my key.

Checked Perfect Drifts lifetime slop starts with the TFigs. In the past he had been on improving trends when he ran on slop and the slop efforts were positive. Still, overall, he doesn\'t have a slop effort that is within 2 points of top and TGraph didn\'t score him unreasonably in regard to his slop history.

Still, visually, he was spinning his wheels a little and maybe the track impacted him. You can say the same for Super though.

Jerry on the Results Sheets you posted for the Hawthorne Gold Cup, what is that little notation next to the sloppy designation for the horse\'s efforts. Its slightly elevated and to the right.

Despite its proximity I don\'t bet Hawthorne often, did anyone think the inside might have carried a little better Saturday?

classhandicapper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TGJB and MIFF,
>
> I believe you guys may be arguing past each other.
>
>
> Without expressing an opinion....
>
> I believe several figure makers made the Pacific
> Classic faster than TG. On those figures it
> probably looks more like Super Frolic paired (or
> close - you get the point) and Perfect Drift then
> ran slower in the Hawthrone.  The figure that is
> probably in dispute is the Pacific Classic because
> the pace was lively and there were only 2 routes
> that day late in the card that could be used for
> making the variant.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Edited 1 times. Last edit at 09/29/05 09:13AM by
> classhandicapper.

[TGJB]

CH-- at a mile, an extra 10 lengths would require 30 pounds of mud, or about 25% of the weight of the rider. Pretty unlikely. Lesser distances-- a length or two-- do not cause huge fluctuations in the figures, just a point or so.

\"I think you understand that I can\'t discuss a horse\'s performance within the confines of a Thoro-Graph figure\".

Then don\'t discuss it here. There are lots of other horseracing sites.

[TGJB]

CTC-- the notation you are referring to is probably the \"sealed\" designation, which Equibase started putting in a couple of months ago. Probably more fallout from the DRF Expo panel, thank you very much.

\"CH-- at a mile, an extra 10 lengths would require 30 pounds of mud, or about 25% of the weight of the rider. Pretty unlikely. Lesser distances-- a length or two-- do not cause huge fluctuations in the figures, just a point or so. \"

Understood. I doubt the impact is limited to the weight of the mud. There are probably other things going on also (including a like or dislike of the surface in some cases). I doubt it\'s a pleasureable experience for horses to have piles of goopy mud kicked at them. I\'ve also noticed that some jockeys ease their horses through the stretch once it gets ridiculous. There are probably other things too.

In any event, I can\'t see the downside of noting the difference between a sloppy surface that was producing reasonable outcomes and one where the margins were much larger than usual. I am much more apt to totally ignore the latter even if the horse has a history of running well in the slop. I am also much more apt to be very skeptical of an extremely fast figure earned on a surface like that because it\'s difficult to guage how much was him being good and how much was the others being bad (for whatever reason).


<<\"I think you understand that I can\'t discuss a horse\'s performance within the confines of a Thoro-Graph figure\".

Then don\'t discuss it here. There are lots of other horseracing sites.>>

That\'s an understandable perspective coming from someone that believes that a figure tells you everything you need to know about a perfomance. It\'s just a difficult perspective for me to believe coming from someone that has been around the game a very long time unless there is another motive.