Elliot Safdie

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Wrote the following in the DRF rundown for the race:

\"Bellamy Road
 
The most common adjective used to describe his performance in the Wood Memorial G1 is freakish; posted the highest-last-Beyer for the effort and though there has been some controversy over the rating, we have to take into account that he set some quick splits and he made it all look effortless; only two starts for the year and could have some bounce coming off the peak effort, but has to be given his due; most expect him to contend for the lead with Spanish Chestnut if not others, but he exudes professionalism and looks capable of taking a different tack; some if to the proposition as he may have peaked too soon, but rates as the one to beat; choice for the win bet.\"

The interesting part to me was the following:

\"there has been some controversy over the rating\"

Perused a lot of stories about Bellamania, but certainly didn\'t read anyone questioning the \"rating\".

Other than discussions here concerning the circumstances surrounding the figure, did anyone hear a controversy regarding the number?

Its easy to imagine Zito will send Bellamania  Preakness if Going Wild passes. If Lukas is smart he\'ll enter both his horses to keep Zito honest. Hey, you\'re Dr. Fager or you\'re not. If you\'re not, learn to rate.

http://www.drf.com/row/row.html



Post Edited (05-09-05 21:47)

[beyerguy]

I do Beyer style ratings, and I posted pretty soon after the race on at least a couple boards that it was too high.  I gave it a 111, not a huge difference, but big enough to move him for towering over the field to marginally best.  Nothing since the Wood has been run has changed my mind.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

hmmmmm

Well thats interesting. Just guessing, Beyer split the variant and tied the Wood to the earlier 10 furlong race on the card. Oblivious to the fact that in all likelihood the form also collapsed in that race. (The winner also) On the basis of variant from pars between the two races the Wood was Huge. Beyerguy, I tend to think you\'re 111 was closer to reality and that Bellamania was fast but no faster than the rest of the Fab Four.

What did Beyer say? The Wood was \"legitimate\". However that was after he first mentioned \"ambiguiety\".

He\'s a good horse and will be very dangerous in the right circumstances.

beyer,

I saw your notes on BR posted here right after the Wood.

Combine that 111 with the fact that he was loose against Grade 3 animals that day and had never been tested in any prior race. Suddenly his performance in a fast paced Derby running wide doesn\'t look so difficult to comprehend. He didn\'t run that poorly in the Derby.

[albany]

CH:

Your post is right on target.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

classhandicapper wrote:

> beyer,
>
> I saw your notes on BR posted here right after the Wood.
>
> Combine that 111 with the fact that he was loose against Grade
> 3 animals that day and had never been tested in any prior race.

The preceding isn\'t entirely true. He was tested in the Keeneland Breeders Futurity by Consolidator. When headed he backed up. It looked very similar in the Derby with the exception that he was chasing for awhile and they didn\'t go by him as fast  because pace and bounce had eliminated most of the good horses.

There was so much hype on that horse, it acutally got to my common sense too. I was gonna bet (save) him for two weeks. Only tossed him the last couple days of deliberation. That was the one positive event of the race. Tossing Bellamania saved me money. Wish I\'d seen Tgraphs Seminar before the race. Never was gonna win, but would have saved quite a bit more by down factoring Bandini.

 
> Suddenly his performance in a fast paced Derby running wide
> doesn\'t look so difficult to comprehend. He didn\'t run that
> poorly in the Derby.



Post Edited (05-10-05 08:37)

CTC,

\"Never was gonna win, but would have saved quite a bit more by down factoring Bandini.\"

I don\'t have any regrets about using Bandini - especially in light of how BR ran. I made a lot of money this spring betting lightly raced improving Pletcher horses against popular wisdom about how they would develop. I also avoided some losses by not underrating the chances of some I didn\'t bet that won. If I wasn\'t a bonehead I would have had Flower Ally in the Lanes End also. I had the number punched and didn\'t click \"submit\" on my computer. I\'ll take Pletcher every day of the week with lightly raced high quality developing horses.  

I can understand some people not liking Bandini because they thought his Bluegrass was too slow.

I can understand some people not liking him because they thought his Bluegrass was too fast.

My opinion was that his performance in the BG was better than the Beyer figure gave it credit for (because pace was a factor), but not so fast that I was questioning his ability to reproduce it (like I was with BR). He ran dreadfully without much excuse (they are saying he was was climbing and may have hurt something).

I don\'t think there\'s going to be a way to evaluate that BG after the fact so we can know who was actually right about the race.

If you thought it was very fast you probably still think it was very fast.

If you thought it was slow you probably still think it was slow.

However Bandini ran in the BG, he didn\'t duplicate it on Saturday.

I hated High Limit Saturday, but I don\'t think we learned a thing about the BG based on his debacle either.

Consolidator is retired.

IMO, Closing Argument ran the best race of his life Saturday. You could easily argue that his performance in the Derby verfied that the BG was very fast \"or\" that he was a short horse for the BG as many here (including me) said was possible before the race and improved for the Derby.

I guess Sun King\'s performance tilts towards the race not being all that fast, but there are plenty of other excuses that can be given for Sun King.

We\'ll learn more about these horses later in the year if they stay healthy.



Post Edited (05-10-05 10:08)

[HP]

Class,

You could also easily argue that each race is a separate event.  Why is there anything left to \"learn\" from the BGrass?  High Limit was hurt and Bandini didn\'t run.  Bandini\'s performance could have nothing to do with the BGrass.  Maybe he didn\'t like the track?  Bad post?  

This is the kind of thing that you write that I love...

\"I guess Sun King\'s performance tilts towards the race not being all that fast, but there are plenty of other excuses that can be given for Sun King.\"

You realize you are saying absolutely nothing here, right?  I mean these long posts where you sum things up and say NOTHING are hard to wade through.  I keep thinking you\'re going to come up with something.  If there are \"plenty of other excuses\" for Sun King\'s performance then it \"tilts\" the BGrass...nowhere, right?    

You have nothing to say here, so why are you posting?  

TG had the BGrass very fast, looking at his sheet before the Derby I thought he would back up.  There was A LOT of stuff posted on this site about \"big top\" horses backing up badly in the Derby and Bandini ran a big top and backed up badly in the Derby.  Really the stuff posted by Chris and others was great, specific and useful.  Absolutely the opposite of the stuff you post, where you pile unfounded assumptions on top of unfounded assumptions, and after the race, you continue to work your way backwards through your unfounded assumptions over and over again.

\"We\'ll learn more about these horses later in the year if they stay healthy.\"

Words to live by.

HP

HP,

\"You could also easily argue that each race is a separate event. Why is there anything left to \"learn\" from the BGrass? \"

Intellectual curiousity and races in the future where my opinion of how well a horse is capable of running in the future could be based on an accurate appraisal of the BG.

\"You realize you are saying absolutely nothing here, right?\"

Yes. That was the point. Unfortunately IMO there was nothing to be learned by Sun King\'s performance - though I wish there was.

\"TG had the BGrass very fast, looking at his sheet before the Derby I thought he would back up. There was A LOT of stuff posted on this site about \"big top\" horses backing up badly in the Derby and Bandini ran a big top and backed up badly in the Derby.\"

You do realize that Beyer, Pace Figs, myself, and virtually everyone else on the planet except for TG and Rag had that race slower (some much slower) - putting it more or less in line with normal 3YO development for Bandini. If you believed the race was slower, then you woundn\'t be throwing him out based on a big new top. You would be trying to figure if he was fast enough to win if he just duplicated it. I can understand you taking the TG figure as gospel, but IMO it wasn\'t and still isn\'t clear if a \"big new top\" had anything at all to do with Bandini\'s dreadful performance.



Post Edited (05-10-05 10:33)

[HP]

\"Beyer, Pace Figs, myself, and virtually everyone else on the planet except for TG and Rags had that race slower (some much slower) - putting it more or less in line with normal 3YO development for Bandini.\"

Maybe TG and Rags are right and everybody else is wrong?

If YOUR figs were worth anything you wouldn\'t have so much time to post here.  

I\'m sure Pace Figs are great, especially since they don\'t include WIND, which everybody knows is not a major factor.  Running a .45 half into a strong wind is the same as running a .45 half with no wind, right?  Since you rely on figures without WIND, I guess you have never been outdoors, since you don\'t think this is important.  Most people who have actually been outdoors know it is.  

Figures without wind (just one example) have no real value.  That\'s why Pace Figs are free.  

Since your figs probably don\'t include unimportant things like wind, I\'m sure they must be very useful.  Try running into a 30 MPH wind sometime and tell me you feel confident leaving it out of your figures.  Why would you prefer figures without wind and why would you think they were a more accurate reflection of reality?  Reality includes wind!    

Ground loss probably isn\'t very important either.  Nope, all you need is a stopwatch and you\'re all set!  

\"I made a lot of money this spring betting lightly raced improving Pletcher horses against popular wisdom about how they would develop.\"

And this had a lot to do with your \"figures,\" right?  Betting Pletcher \"against popular wisdom?\"  Yeah, those were some kind of longshot bombs Pletcher was putting out there this spring.  You\'re probably ready to retire about now.

I don\'t take it as gospel, but TG has a superior methodology that more accurately reflects a horse\'s performance.  Jerry\'s record in the Derby is A LOT better than Beyer\'s!  Most people who post here are well aware of the shortcomings of the other methods...

Maybe you should post your figures for big races here, instead of reviewing the BGrass (again)?  I\'ll look forward to it.  

HP

[jbelfior]

In light of the many horses over the years which have not translated their form from KEE to CD ( we have several examples this past weekend), why argue about a non-issue such as the BG.

HIGH LIMIT ran last... BANDINI was next to last... and CA, beaten 10 lenghths, almost won the Derby. Let\'s move on.

IMO, the BG has been and always will be the biggest joke of a prep because of the track it is run over. I\'d put more stock in the Whirlaway at AQU.



Good Luck,
Joe b.

HP,

\"Maybe TG and Rags are right and everybody else is wrong?\"

Certainly possible and I said as much when JB posted the sheets for the day. They made perfect sense to me.

\"Maybe you should post your figures for big races here, instead of reviewing the BGrass (again)? I\'ll look forward to it.\"

I did and they squared perfectly when the impact of pace was taken into consideration as posted.

It\'s not job my to post pacefigs #s, but I saw them. Even though they were a hair different than mine, they squared perfectly when the impact of pace was taken into consideration.

So you can see my problem.

I am looking at two views of the same race that make perfect sense. However they tell me different things about how fast the race was and how well certain horses ran.

One tells me that Bandini probably bounced from here to the moon and the other tells me that Bandini hadn\'t run an especially fast race relative to his prior performances to begin with and lost for other reasons.

\"I\'d put more stock in the Whirlaway at AQU.\"

Now that was funny. :-)

[HP]

\"One tells me that Bandini probably bounced from here to the moon and the other tells me that Bandini hadn\'t run an especially fast race relative to his prior performances to begin with and lost for other reasons.\"

The one that tells you Bandini hadn\'t run an especially fast race is probably wrong, since the method used to calculate those figures doesn\'t include many of the relevant variables.  

As usual, you don\'t address some of the more relevant points...

Why would you prefer Pace Figs or your own figs without WIND, as just one variable for example?  

Talk about WIND, not PACE.  Figures without WIND have to be garbage.  Seriously.  

Explain to me how pace figures are useful without including wind?  How do you compare .45 half miles, one with a 30MPH headwind and one with no wind?  There is just no comparison.  If your figures (or Pace Figures) don\'t take this into account, aren\'t they absolutely useless?  

HP

[Captain Stormfield]

\"Other than discussions here concerning the circumstances surrounding the figure, did anyone hear a controversy regarding the number?\"

It\'s possible Safdie is referring to James Quinn\'s timely piece in the Derby edition of Horseplayer Magazine.  Quinn touts Rockport Harbor(!) as one of only four Derby contenders, and then in a sidebar makes the case that Bellamy Road\'s 120 is inflated, working off the variant for the two preceeding sprints Wood day.  

Quinn says the \"standard\" sprint/route variant ratio is three-to-two, that is, a deviation of three lenghts in routes for every two lengths in sprints.  He says the sprint variant was fast 10, making the Wood variant fast 15.  And so he feels confident he can lop off 10 Beyer points from Survivalist\'s 92, causing him to run three lengths slower for his second place finish in the Wood(G1) than he did in his 2YO maiden win in October.

I made that last part up.  Quinn only works off the winner and therefore delivers up this nonsense:

\"Although estimating variants can be an arty process, and that was surely the situation here, it\'s difficult to imagine how the Beyer associates arrived at the lofty 120.  The projection technique could not have sufficed to estimate the route variant, as no horse in the Wood Memorial had recorded even a Beyer Speed Figure of 103, the equivalent Beyer par for the race, and Bellamy Road had not run faster than a Beyer 96.  The projection technique would have yielded an even faster track variant, thereby reducing Bellamy Road\'s speed figure below a Beyer 110.\"

Now that I think about it, Quinn\'s logic doesn\'t rise to the level of \"controversy.\"  It was your Bellamania posts Safdie was referring to, Chuckles.