Figure Making Final Exams

[Furious Pete]

FWIW, Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer didn\'t peak until he was 9.

[jbelfior]

You\'re right. Won the Gravesend in the late December fog at Aqueduct off of the Pete Ferriola claim. 😜  
Then how the degenerates at the Big A loved him as they shouted out with glee, Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer- you just ran a negative 3.

Good Luck,
Joe B.

[bobphilo]

Fairmount1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wrongly1 wrote:  \"We all know who Peter Miller is
> and why that horse popped a big number.\"
>
> HARD WORK.  
> UP EARLY IN THE MORNINGS.
> LET\'S A HORSE BE A HORSE.
>
> Those are the only ones I can think of that would
> add up to a negative six.....
>
> If you question Jerry\'s number by the way
> (bobphilo), then you better question Beyer also.
> “It is the highest figure we’ve ever assigned
> to a turf race,...\"  Do you really think JB and
> Beyer both got it wrong?  I haven\'t look at
> Timeform or Bris; maybe others can weigh in on how
> those two saw the race.  
>
> https://www.drf.com/news/jerardi-stormy-liberals-1
> 19-beyer-one-books

I am not questioning Jerry\'s number. I\'m actually defending the possibility of a 6YO horses ability to run a big new top against all those that think he\'s too old. I\'m defending his number but he\'s taking it as an insult. It\'s those that can\'t believe the number that are criticizing Jerry\'s figure making accuracy.

TimeformUS is giving it a 128. I\'m asking Craig there what the horse\'s previous figures were and what he thinks about this.

[TGJB]

Are you still here? Incoming... and well deserved.

[bobphilo]

Bet Twice Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have no problem with the number.  My issue is
> and was with you spouting off with some ridiculous
> argument, which at this point, I’m not even sure
> what that argument is.  Probably best to let this
> go at this point.

What ridiculous argument am I putting forth? The only way for the figure to be correct is that it is possible for a 6YO horse can run such a big new top. I am defending the figure by proving that a 6Y0 horse can run such a race. If you don\'t believe that you are the one questioning Jerry\'s figure. If you have trouble interpreting the study just look at the chart that shows the horses\' Beyers peak at 4.45 and decline very slowly in the following years.That is just the average horse. About half of all horses peak even later.

[BB]

TGJB wrote:

\"5-- I\'m not going to even get into your subsequent replies to other guys. You got off easier than you should have, either because they\'re being nice, don\'t care, or critical analysis is dead.\"

I know many of the posters here and I\'m pretty sure it\'s not \"A\". And although \"C\" is almost certainly true, I don\'t think it\'s that one either. So it\'s gotta be \"B\". I mean, who wants to argue with someone who is so never wrong that he insists that writing \"Limousine\" instead of \"Stormy\" is a \"typo\"?

And what\'s the deal with noting someone has a \"great wife\" but failing to include Ralph Kiner\'s qualifier?

[bobphilo]

Fine. That\'s what I get for trying to defend your figure against those that can\'t believe that a horse can run such a big top at 6. Someone even misinterpreted a study claiming that it showed that a horse cannot do that and therefore your figure is bogus until I showed him how to interpret the study. I only answered this post because someone was making the absurd claim that a 6YO horse is equivalent to a 55 year old man. If you don\'t doubt that you know less about horses than I thought you did.
Okay, just let everybody say that your figure is impossible and come down on me for defending it and saying it was possible. Who needs this ungrateful shit.

[Furious Pete]

Three thoughts:

1) You\'re obviously 55 years old. Or maybe 6. In any case: Yeez man, let it go..

2) You are misunderstanding the point of this discussion. I don\'t think anybody is questioning that Stormy Liberal ran a big new top at age 6. How big a new top is questionable, but I don\'t see how anyone could argue that he didn\'t run the race of his life, by far, and I haven\'t seen anyone credible doing it either. Certainly not on this board. It\'s how he could do that, that is troublesome. I think you stand pretty alone when you basically argue that it\'s due to randomness that is to be expected within a standard deviation. This was the fastest turf race ever per TG. The study you so desperately try to bend to your will, is not about athletes that already is challenging the boundaries of equine capabilities. Taleb has a brilliant name for people like you: IYI. Intellectual Yet Idiot ( https://medium.com/incerto/the-intellectual-yet-idiot-13211e2d0577 )

3) I think it\'s time now to repeat a little trick our dear Larry David has taught us, to get out of messes like these. I use it all the time! Lift up both your arms, well over your head, and say out loud: \"oh geez, forgive me guys. I am on the spectrum\".

[TGJB]

Cut the crap. There’s not a person on this site challenging the figure. That’s a straw man.

Bobâ€" nice Kiner reference. He also said, “statistics are like bikinis. They show a lot, but not everything”.

[Tavasco]

I thought yuz guys were talking about Roy H.

[P-Dub]

BB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TGJB wrote:
>
>
> I know many of the posters here and I\'m pretty
> sure it\'s not \"A\". And although \"C\" is almost
> certainly true, I don\'t think it\'s that one
> either. So it\'s gotta be \"B\". I mean, who wants to
> argue with someone who is so never wrong that he
> insists that writing \"Limousine\" instead of
> \"Stormy\" is a \"typo\"?
>

Its B.

Even I don\'t have the energy to argue with this guy. When has that ever happened?? Perhaps watching the Raiders every week has something to do with that.

This string goes down into the TG Clueless HOF.