Not so fast, HP

[Alydar in California]

My line: \"Weight will cost more lengths at longer distances, but a length is more important at 5f than at 10f.\"

Your reply, in part: \"This is purest bunk. There\'s no such thing as a more important length.\"

Poor HP, who has been so peaceable hitherto. Would you rather break one length slow in a hundred-yard dash or in a marathon? A point is worth about one length at five furlongs and about two lengths at 10 furlongs. Please read the TG introduction. Then look at a beaten-lengths chart. Then, as someone on the Derby List once said, get some milk and cookies before we move on to the alphabet.

Not since you refused to admit that Kelli Williams is the most beautiful woman on earth have you written anything so silly. Hegel would be disappointed in you. Enjoy your trip.

[HP]

Would you rather break one length slow in a hundred-yard dash or in a marathon?

I thought we were talking about weight. What does this have to do with carrying weight? The effect of weight over distance, which is what we were talking about, has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with this point. Your original comment,

: \"Weight will cost more lengths at longer distances, but a length is more important at 5f than at 10f.\"

is senseless because you could say \"a length is more important at 5f than at 10f\" REGARDLESS of weight, no? Weight is an independent factor and treated as such, el brain-o.

But I guess we\'re going to skip over weight now and move onto your penetrating analysis of what constitutes this \'more important\' length.

Maybe TG should add a notation to op (off poorly) so it looks like this in sprint races - opSLWMIAA (meaning the horse was off poorly and the Sprinting Length Was More Important According to Alydar).

As for your patronizing admonition to read the intro and look at a beaten length chart, I\'ll just wave this off. I will point out, however, that you argue like a woman. You start talking about something, and really discussing it (weight), and then you just veer off into new territory (more important lengths) when you run out of gas. HP

[TGJB]

   Okay, boys. Both of you are good guys, and the problem was that neither of you made your point completely clearly- you both understand the weight/lengths thing. Now go out to the racetrack and play nice. Incidentally, HP, once you indicatetd I knew you I looked up who you were, and I never would have guessed. Yes, you would rather talk than listen.

[HP]

Jerry, mon chapeau, he said my comments on weight were wrong. This is what I said.

Weight - a relatively tiny component assuming we are talking about a relatively tiny difference in weight. If two horses were likely to run 3\'s and one is carrying ten pounds less I\'m probably going with that one (ground loss?), and in this example, it\'s a major component. Common sense would dictate the longer the race, the more the weight matters.

First off, this is CLEAR. Any clearer and you could walk through it. Second, this is absolutely in line with TG methodology and related dogma. Third, he said it was wrong!

If this is wrong, how can you say he understands the weight/lengths thing? Then he went off on his dizzy tangent about the relative importance of lengths at different distances (a completely separate issue).

I know you like the guy. I like him too. Even though it takes him fourteen thousand words to say \'maybe\'. If he talks like he writes he\'s got me out-yakked by ten freakin miles.

Don\'t forget my overall mastery of these frequently debated concepts, mon plume de derriere. HP

[Alydar in California]

   Hi HP. You forgot to give me some credit for calling \"Drops of Jupiter\" song of the year.

   \"Maybe TG should add a notation to op (off poorly)...the horse was off slowly and the Sprinting Length was more important according to Alydar.\"

    Maybe you, HP, should read the words that are on top of the ROTW every week: \"Each path wide is worth about one length...at TODAY\'S DISTANCE that equals...of a TG point.\" It varies according to distance, and off poorly would too. You are making a fool out of yourself, and I am thoroughly tired of your shi#.

     \"If two horses were likely to run 3s..Common sense would dictate the longer the race, the more weight matters.\"

     No. Common sense would dictate that you look at the TG introduction page. 5 pounds = one point, REGARDLESS of distance. That is the methodology (I hate that word) you said you were in line with. Giving extra credit for lighter weight at longer distances is double counting because weight/distance is in the formula already. 5 pounds = one point. Forget the distance. Just look at the weights and adjust. And if you want a TG-Rags beaten-lengths chart, let me know. I picked up a really good one several months ago. None of that \"approximately\" crap.

    \"You argue like a woman.\"

     Thank you. I had a lot of practice. My ex-girlfriend makes Camille Paglia sound like Chrissy of \"Three\'s Company.\"

      \"There is no such thing as a \'more important length\'.\"

      See above. And quit wrapping those skinny quotation marks around words I didn\'t write. I wrote: \"A length is more important...\"

    \"I do not consider [weight] differences of less than five pounds.\"

      Yeah. That fifth pound does all the work. Fuc# the first four. I can see you\'ve given this a lot of thought, HP.

      \"I know you like the guy. I do too.\"

       No, HP. You don\'t like me. That has been quite obvious for some time, and the reason for it is equally obvious.

[Mall]

I don\'t want to start a war of quotes, especially with the threat of Nietzsche hanging in the air, but the turn this debate has taken brings to mind the final remarks of the Duke of Mallberry, one of my ancestors who, while not a cowboy poet, did know Nostradamus & supposedly came over on the boat with the great-great grandfather of the dopester who uses the nom de guerre Hank the Angry Dwarf, to wit: \"From a scientific standpoint, it is indisputable that if someone spits in the ocean, all things being equal, the water level must rise. In the real world, of course, all things are never equal, whether the subject is how fast a particular horse can or will run, or whether someone has the discipline to stick to the issues and make his or her best argument without resorting to personal attacks. Some day, many yrs in the future, one of my progeny will attempt to engage in a series of cyberdebates with one who calls himself Aly.....\" Sadly, he never lived to finish that sentence.

Aly, you were the one who, a short time ago, called HP a bright guy who would do the right thing & solicited his opinion. I went along because his \"resolution\" of the trainer info debate seemed like evidence that he was operating in the real world, where rigid adherence to any orthodoxy can be an expensive proposition indeed, & because all debates must end sometime. When all is said & done, HP got it right on both issues & what he said should have been the last word. To react this way after you requested his view is unseemly.

There is not going to be any miracle of time & space which allows you to make a comeback in this debate, but even after all you\'ve said I\'m hopeful that there will be future debates which will \"get things rocking\" & perhaps allow all of us to learn a thing or 2. In order for that to happen, you\'re going to have to come to grips with the fact that we aren\'t dealing with the unsolvable mysteries of the universe & none of this is or should be personal. You\'re also going to have to figure out some way to extricate your teeth from HP\'s ankle.

[HP]

\"Maybe TG should add a notation to op (off poorly)...the horse was off slowly and the Sprinting Length was more important according to Alydar.\"

Maybe you, HP, should read the words that are on top of the ROTW every week: \"Each path wide is worth about one length...at TODAY\'S DISTANCE that equals...of a TG point.\" It varies according to distance, and off poorly would too.

What varies according to distance? I don\'t get it.

\"If two horses were likely to run 3s..Common sense would dictate the longer the race, the more weight matters.\"

No. Common sense would dictate that you look at the TG introduction page. 5 pounds = one point, REGARDLESS of distance. That is the methodology (I hate that word) you said you were in line with. Giving extra credit for lighter weight at longer distances is double counting because weight/distance is in the formula already. 5 pounds = one point. Forget the distance. Just look at the weights and adjust. And if you want a TG-Rags beaten-lengths chart, let me know. I picked up a really good one several months ago. None of that \"approximately\" crap.

I said common sense. Aly baby, how about this. Carry 125 pounds on your back for a block. Then carry it on your back for two blocks. Let me know how it goes. I don\'t think I\'m the only one making a fool of myself!

If I carry 115 pounds and race you one block, the 10 pound impost you carry will affect you a certain amount (assuming all else is absolutely equal). At two blocks it will affect you more (YOUR \'BREAK\' NOTWITHSTANDING (Holy cow! - you can break like the wind for all the difference it makes in this argument!)), and all other things being equal, it\'s going to help me more the longer we go. I didn\'t need the TG intro chart to figure this out. You can think about this when you handicap or not. It\'s all you man! Freedom!

The 5 pounds/1 point formula applies when comparing numbers of two horses. Like if two horses can run 3\'s, and one horse is carrying ten pounds more, that horse would have to run a 1 (assuming all else is equal) to win. I get it fine without the \'intro\' and my point(s) stand.

And yes, the first 4 pounds don\'t matter. It\'s the fifth one that breaks \'em. I\'ve talked to horses about this and I KNOW.

I like you fine, but you threw in that thing about the weight (I was wrong!) and I didn\'t like it. You\'re at least as wrong as me, given the points above. Where I come from, your best friends always do the best job of insulting you.

Mall\'s no soup thing was funny. HP

[Mall]

As Sally Fields might say: Does that last post mean you like me too HP? Really like me? If you want funny, think Sean Connery trying to be hip in that movie trailer when he exclaims: \"You the man,now,DOG!\"

I\'m going to leave it you to figure out how to send me the chart, as Derby1592 recently pted out that my email address has been \"suppressed.\" Email addresses appear to be just one more example in the long list of oppressed groups whose rights don\'t mean a thing to the \"Man.\"

While I applaud your call to \"Freedom\" HP, the fact that you believe that you have talked to horses & seem to be using CAPS LOCK MODE more often has me a little concerned. At this pt I\'m asking you, Alydar & everyone else if we can\'t please end this debate & quit beating what is now a very dead horse?

[HP]

Hey, I\'m down with that, bro. Or should I say \'dog\'? I like everybody and everybody likes me!

The alternative could be that Aly and I race down streets of varying distance carrying weights on our backs (maybe we could carry real jockeys - I have the strength of ten men!). JB can have the film rights.

You\'re probably jealous of me. He said he was \'thoroughly tired of my shi#.\' I wore him out! You had a whole 15 point battle with him and he was still ready for more from you. HP

[TGJB]

HP wrote:
>
> Hey, I\'m down with that, bro. Or should I say \'dog\'? I like
> everybody and everybody likes me!
>
> The alternative could be that Aly and I race down streets of
> varying distance carrying weights on our backs (maybe we
> could carry real jockeys - I have the strength of ten men!).
> JB can have the film rights.
>
> You\'re probably jealous of me. He said he was \'thoroughly
> tired of my shi#.\' I wore him out! You had a whole 15 point
> battle with him and he was still ready for more from you. HP

TG--Okay, I said I would stay out of this as long as possible, and it was a good one.

1-5 pounds = 1 point at all distances.
1 point = about 1 length at 5f, 2 lengths at 10f, WHETHER IT IS A POINT OF ABILITY OR A POINT OF WEIGHT.

2-I agree that characterizations of people and their behavior is best left to be aimed at those bad faith posters with agendas who truly deserve them.

Chucles, Plever, those who slander business competitors, and a few fringe lunatic Ragzoin customers come to mind. Those who simply disagree with us don\'t. (Can\'t appear to be playing favorites.)

3-I hated Finding Forrester.

4.-Speaking of girlfriends, mine is about to leave for Iraq to research a book on the Kurds.

[Alydar in California]

   HP wrote: \"What varies according to distance? I don\'t get it.\"

    A lost length, due to ground loss, off poorly, weight carried, etc., is more important the shorter the race. This is because the time (about a fifth of a second) the nine feet or so of trouble or added weight adds to the horse\'s final time is more important the shorter the race. And this, in turn, is because a fifth of a second is a bigger percentage of the, say, 57 seconds it takes to run 5f than it is of the, say, 120 seconds it takes to run 10f.

   According to the chart in front of me, this is the value--in points--of a length at several different distances:

  .96 at 5f, .80 at 6f, .60 at one mile, .48 at a mile and one quarter.

  The slide reflects the increased importance of a length (or an inch, or 20 lengths) at shorter distances.

   You also wrote: \"You\'re at least as wrong as me, given the points above.\"

   That is monumentally false, but it is well said, Pangloss. Now you must cultivate your garden.

[HP]

1 point = about 1 length at 5f, 2 lengths at 10f, WHETHER IT IS A POINT OF ABILITY OR A POINT OF WEIGHT.

So the 5 pound difference in weight is worth MORE at a longer distance. That chart is fascinating, but I guess you weren\'t happy with this as the last word. My lawn looks like CRAP! HP

[bj]

*** You guys are driving me nuts .
A length and a fifth of a second are WORTH MORE at shorter distances , but they are NOT weight . You are comparing apples and oranges here . According to TG 5LBS = 1 point AT ALL DISTANCES - PERIOD , END OF DISCUSSION . Beaten lengths are irrelevant to weight carried . I assume that the reason this is taken as gospel is due to the fact that at shorter distances the energy required to attain maximum velocity from a standing start is as significant to a horse as carrying weight for additional furlongs , but the additional furlongs are run by a horse already in motion , therefore the additional distance travelled is not a significant factor in measuring effort based upon weight carried.
This is an assumption , as i am not an engineer .
The following is a direct quote from JB re his post on figure making methodology . \"We also know that 5 pounds = 1 point , which both Ragozin and TG use , while a good estimate is not accurate . But since we can\'t get the body weights of the individual horses , it will have to do .\"
Not exactly a ringing endorsement for a nit picking discussion .
     Now you guys can shake hands , and quit the pissing match . bj

[Alydar in California]

   Your absence was driving me nuts, bj.

   What I was doing makes sense if you read this entire string, including the part that I inadvertently detached. This is the sentence of mine that inspired HP to repay 10 months of compliments with a bunch of idiotic insults:

   \"Weight will cost more lengths at longer distances, but a length is more important at 5f than it is at 10f.\"

    This sentence is perfectly true, but HP didn\'t understand it. I then said the same thing in different words: \"Five pounds = one point, regardless of distance. A point is worth about one length at 5f and two lengths at 10f.\" HP didn\'t understand that, either, but when JB wrote the same words, HP made the most preposterous declaration of victory in the modern era.

     I got a little tired of HP\'s refrigerator-on-the-back garbage because the sentence that started this said the same thing: \"Weight will cost more lengths at longer distances...\"

       HP devoted several insults to my \"A length is more important at shorter distances\" line. THAT is why I brought up the beaten-lengths chart. Looking at one is the easiest way to understand the concept. I could have shown the same thing with a speed chart, but I don\'t have a TG speed chart, and I didn\'t want to bring Beyer into this.

   Beaten-lengths are relevant to weight carried in the sense that if all else is equal, five extra pounds will produce a one-length loss at five furlongs and a two-length loss at 10f, this despite five pounds equaling one point at all distances. This point was central to HP\'s confusion, and my discussion of beaten lengths was an attempt to end it.

     Welcome back.

[Alydar in California]

  JB: Please give me a list of every word of mine that you disagree with. Don\'t leave anything out. I feel like arguing with you now.

     Please tell your girlfriend that I have encyclopedic knowledge of all things Kurdish. If that\'s not good enough, go ahead and tell her that I am Kurdish. I am itching to be interviewed.