Did Exaggerator not like Belmont Surface?

[miff]

Bob,

Of course but track speed is highly relevant with pace or whole figs. Very little current data is available on 12f pace figs and simply because of the distance, jocks are most likely putting the brakes on early.Saturdays raw surface was plus+ many lengths.

Pace figs at 12f rarely pass a smell test as jockey intent is not quantifiable.This Belmont\'s pace was more to the honest/slower side in my notes.The whole race I deem common,the winner still a slug.

Mike

[miff]

Rich,

I saw both,and felt CJ\'s comments did not match the 140? early(from memory)Regardless,we can get too anal about such issues.In this case,the likelihood of using the race/pace to predict the next performance of these horses,is semi delusional.



Mike

[Rich Curtis]

Jimbo had posted the following:

\"Look at pace figures for the Belmont, it was a VERY slow pace.\"

And both Jimbo and Bobphilo made several posts on this subject while unaware that there were two 12F dirt races at Belmont on Saturday.

[jimbo66]

Rich,

I was well aware of the other 12 furlong race.  I bet the race and watched it.  (and handicapped it on this board, the day before)

I am not going to advertise another product here, but I get pace figures for all the races on the NY circuit.

The Moss stuff is easy to pull off the internet.  

I have two figures, one average and one below par.  

We have already gone on about the pace of this race enough.  You really want to call Saturday a fast pace and explain the result that way, feel free to do it.  it\'s a free country.

As for bob\'s posts.  I am giving up.  Kent, a hall of fame jockey, doesn\'t understand that the pace for a 1 1/2 mile race is different, nor do the guys that make figures on the track.  How can I argue with that?  

I think the race Saturday is one of the easiest to assess after the fact that you will EVER see in a Triple Crown race.  The favorite fired too many fast ones in a short period of time and didn\'t fire Saturday. The awful result may have been exacerbated by a dislike for the track, but that certainly wasn\'t the reason he lost.  The pace gave all horses in the race a shot to win.  A closer won, stalkers finished in the 2nd and 4th slots and another closer was 3rd.  The track was very fast on Saturday and the presence of a rabbit had about zero impact on the race, as he wasn\'t a rabbit.  No major jockey screwups worth complaining about.  Sure, Kent had the favorite 4 wide for no reason, but he was so empty it didn\'t matter.  One could argue Javier moved a bit soon to press down the backside, but as somebody who badly needed Destin, I can\'t say it was a bad move.  Irad gave a brilliant ride.  

time to move on.

Jim

[Rich Curtis]

Jimbo:

Read the response you made to Bobphilo when he said that there was only one 12F dirt race on Saturday.

As for the unnamed pace figures that support your case, I am not sure how to cross-examine a star witness who has a brown paper bag over his head.

\"I have two figures, one average and one below par.\"

Actually, you have three. Two of them have names.

[bobphilo]

Just 2 races are hardly a large enough sample to calculate a pace par.

[miff]

Think Rich may be suggesting that if you look at the pace for both races,the Belmont pace does not come up slow.If that\'s all you\'re looking at,you can get to the Belmont pace being quasi-fast.

[bobphilo]

I don\'t know why so many people are misunderstanding my and Jim\'s posts to mean that Ex\'s seeming to sink deeper into the surface than the other horses means we are chalking up his defeat to this one factor.
I have stated clearly that fatigue from previous races, pace and a poor ride were important factors. I was merely pointing out that the photos showed the possibility that Ex did not like the track based on what what the photos showed and was pursuing the possibility that this may have been a factor from a novel point of view.

[bobphilo]

Rich Curtis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
 
> Moss has the race shape: average early, fast mid,
> average late.
>
> CJ has the pace as fast.

Interesting that nobody has the pace as slow or \"crawling\" as Kent claims. That\'s what I was objecting too.

[miff]

The \"he didnt like the track\" argument is very weak. Exagg handled 7 different surfaces/tracks with aplomb.His Belmont X was the classic, over the top, cumulative effect,if there ever was one.

[Rich Curtis]

Bobphilo wrote:


\"Just 2 races are hardly a large enough sample to calculate a pace par.\"

That was not my point, Bobphilo. This was:

You were giving this lecture:

\"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.\"

OK, why did you write this? What was your point?

[TGJB]

There was one the day before too.

[bobphilo]

Big Sandy is unique. The photos show he was sinking deeper into the track than the other horses.
I don\'t know how many times I have to say this. I have NEVER downplayed the fact that he very well may have bounced. It\'s possible to bounce and dislike the track too. The 2 are not mutually exclusive.

[Tavasco]

Bob - Not meaning to be rude.

You don\'t have to say it ever again.

Please

[TGJB]

Funny.