Did Exaggerator not like Belmont Surface?

[bobphilo]

Jim,

The handful of races you cite is way too small a sample to establish a pace par. If anything you\'ll note that the faster the early pace was the slower the final time. Hardly a good argument that a quick early pace is the best way to run the race.

As a deep closer Creator would have been doomed if the pace were slow
Except for Destin, who ran a terrific race, everyone who was near Gettysburg\'s solid pace died in the stretch as the closers capitalized. A sure sign the pace was tiring.
Asmussen was right to celebrate the early pace as it helped his deep closer win the race and the result bore this out.

Real Quiet was staggering home like a drunk in the Belmont stretch. A sure indicator that he suffered from a very inefficient dumb ride.

[jimbo66]

Bob,

Do you have reputable pace figures for Saturday?

I do.  The pace was not fast.  Believe what you want, the pace was par to slow.  Look at the charts Saturday if you don\'t have pace figures.  

Creator winning the race is not any kind of proof of anything regarding the pace.  The only thing it did was prove that Irad can put a good ride on a big stage and that the overall race was slow.

As for the comment about Kent.  Dumb.

Jim

[jp702006]

Governor Malibu ran close to the pace and was ready to make a big run before being stopped.

[sekrah]

Horses for the course, sure.  Horses that will consistently run 4+ points worse on one dirt track over another?  You\'re living in a dream world based on very few data points bud.

The only conclusion one could possibly make about Lava Man, is that he didn\'t ship well.  I remember people jumping to the conclusion that he didn\'t like Del Mar poly because of one race. Until he came back to win that same race the following year, 2 points faster.

Skip Away couldn\'t get a number at Churchill Downs? LOL He ran two races there in a 38 race career and that\'s the conclusion you got? Nevermind he did run a 110 Beyer in the final race of his career.  His other race at CD (the Derby), followed a massive top just a few weeks earlier in the Bluegrass.

For there being 100s of examples, you chose two really awful ones to try to make your case.

[jimbo66]

Yes.  Governor Malibu, Destin, Stradivari all close the pace.  All ran OK.

The reason a couple of the \"pace makers\" finished up the track were that one was in poor form and entered as a rabbit and the other was an incredibly slow maiden breaker that didn\'t belong in the race.  Drawing conclusions off those two isn\'t good handicapping/post race analysis.

Jim

[bobphilo]

Jim,

You know better than using pace figures for 1-turn races at shorter distances to determine a pace par for the longer 2-turn marathon Belmont distance. As this was the only race on dirt at the distance you have to see how the pace affected the horses in this race and horses running on the pace did worse than the closers.

Another method I often use is based on the physiological principle that the best way to run a race is to distribute energy evenly, especially at longer distances.

One compares the pace call to the final time to see how efficiently a horse is running. Now a deviation of about a second is no big deal but anymore is a very fast pace and the longer the race the more serious the consequences.
Given the final time the pace call shows the Belmont was run inefficiently by front runners, as the results show. The fact that the race was run inefficiently in the past has no relevance.

Just to clarify, are you calling me dumb because I called Kent\'s ride dumb. If so, please skip the personal insults.

[jimbo66]

Bob,

I didn\'t call you dumb.  If you took it that way, I apologize.  What I said was that you saying that Real Quiet staggering home was proof that Kent gave the horse a dumb ride was dumb.  And I stand by that.  That statement, in the best case, is just wrong.  Horses stagger home or bear in / bear out when either they are tired or injured.  Real Quiet was tired.  As I said in the original thread, it is certainly extremely debatable whether or not Kent gave Real Quiet a good ride. But when a horse of roughly equal talent beats his horse by a nostril after getting what many people consider one of the best all time rides in a big spot, it is just wrong to say it was a dumb ride.  

As for your pace comments about the best way to run a race, it holds more water with turf races.  We don\'t reverse split or even split dirt races in the U.S. .  They do it from time to time on the turf, but not dirt.  The reason I gave you the splits of other Belmonts was to show you that.  The distribution of time early to late in this year\'s Belmont was much more even than in other Belmonts.  As for not being able to make pace figures without other races at the same distance on the same day, the top figure makers adjust for this, in the same way TGJB or BEyer does this.  And I repeat - this year\'s Belmont didn\'t have a fast pace. While you might find it interesting to try and point that Gettysburg and Seeking the Soul collapsing pointing to a fast pace, that just doesn\'t hold much water.  Both were 55-1 and were rabbits.  Destin, Governor Malibu and Stradivari all ran near the pace and ran fine.  If you wanted to analyze the pace without using available data and prefer to look at results, your call.  But there is a reason people buy pace figures.  And even if I take your lead and try to analyze the pace via the results, the analysis would conclude the pace was fair.  The top 5 finishers were a normal mix of pace pressers, mid pack horses and closers.  

Moving on.

Jim

[RICH]

makes you long for the chuckles days, not as bad as the Sherman links, but on its way

[Rich Curtis]

\"As this was the only race on dirt at the distance \"

What about race 4?

[Rich Curtis]

Jimbo wrote: \"Do you have reputable pace figures for Saturday?
I do. The pace was not fast.\"

 Which ones are you looking at?

[miff]

Strange \"rabbit\" that only goes 24/48.2 raw on a very quick surface.

[Rich Curtis]

I agree, Miff. That was no rabbit. But you can have a relatively fast pace without a rabbit. Anyway, I was hoping you\'d quote some pace figures so I don\'t have to.

[bobphilo]

miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Strange \"rabbit\" that only goes 24/48.2 raw on a
> very quick surface.

Mike, you are forgetting that we are talking about the pace for a 12 furlong marathon. A lot of people, like Kent, don\'t seem to understand that this is not a shorter race. One size fits all regardless of distance is not accurate pace analysis.

[miff]

Rich,

Honestly tend to evaluate pace by myself in NY/Cali but do respect/use CJ and Moss, not a Bris fan.Paco Lopez(Gettysburg) was trying to win imo.Dont know what his instructions were. You know, historically, true rabbits are sent hard and go as fast and as long as they are able to, then ease.Paco hardly went out sending with intent to go fast all the way.

A simple conversion of track speed for the day makes the splits look like 25/49.2 hardly fast but not real slow for the 12f distance(data base on the distance at Belmont very small) Also, while the track may have been fast but honest, no wires all day on dirt.Think Connect,Fish House Road, Destin(lesser extent)ran better than their figs indicate,pace adjusted.

Mike

[Rich Curtis]

Miff: Again, I totally agree with you on there being no rabbit. A rabbit does not care how long the race is. That is what makes him a rabbit. The Belmont had no rabbit.

Moss has the race shape: average early, fast mid, average late.

CJ has the pace as fast.