TG Figures for 2007 Belmont

[TGAB]

Attached are the Thoro-Graph sheets for the 2007 Belmont field with the respective Thoro-Graph figures earned for each horse.

[miff]

TGAB,


Did you forget the slow pace symbol or did you guys think that the pace was normal, especially considering the speed of the track.


Mike

[TGJB]

Miff-- the pace was slow, but I didn\'t really have to do much in terms of adjusting the race (I was able to pretty much just use the final time, with only a small deduction), so I didn\'t mark it.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Miff, the Good News is that the Belmont Stakes is a unique race at a unique distance. In other words if the figure assigned is far too fast, who is gonna challenge the figure upon subsequent results at lesser distance? Lets assume the Belmont winner never approaches the same form in the respective class again. Who can complain with any objective justification upon those latter results?

Now to the figures. Were you the least bit troubled by Jerry\'s explanation of why no slow pace notation was necessary? Didn\'t the words used feel contorted to you?

TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Miff-- the pace was slow, but I didn\'t really have
> to do much in terms of adjusting the race (I was
> able to pretty much just use the final time, with
> only a small deduction), so I didn\'t mark it.

Theres a simple truism when it comes to the facts/truth and its this:

\"When you stretch the Truth, you ruin it.\"

I read the Tgraph comments above as saying \"The pace was slow, the final time was consistent with the track speed.\" Really, so they ran inordinately fast late? Hey, isn\'t that what happened in the Blue Grass? You mean the same logical consistency doesn\'t apply to the Belmont Stakes where they LITERALLY crawled early?

Next item, lets look at the track Belmont day.

http://www.equibase.com/static/chart/pdf/BEL060907USA.pdf

22.68, 45.21, 1.08.81
23.46, 46.12, 1.09.62, 1.34.13, 1.47.33
22.35, 45.21, 1.10.12
22.07, 44.38, 1.08.70
22.38, 44.93, 1.09.08, 1.21.49
22.24, 45.10, 1.09.13, 1.34.70
24.74, 50.14, 1.15.32, 1.40.23, 2.04.91, 2.28.75

Now Mr. Brown\'s comments to me Post Blue Grass...

[CTC-- the idea behind the \"slow pace\" designation is that sometimes the pace is so slow the final time is affected-- you see it happen often in grass races here, and on a regular basis in Europe. What happens is that they go so slow that they simply can\'t make up the lost time-- they can\'t run 20 second quarters or 40 second halves. TG, Time-Form, Beyer, and Ragozin all adjust our figures when that happens, though we have different ways of doing it (Ragozin evidently has some kind of formula, according to Friedman, while the rest of us go by the horses).

http://www.thorograph.com/phorum/read.php?1,33954,34063#msg-34063

I have some preliminary questions:

1. Do you recognize the Belmont Track as Fast for the Day in question? Faster than Par for the respective classes.?

2. Considering your post Bluegrass response to me, do you believe the logical consistency of \"Slow Early, Fast Late, thus Slower TFig\" is exclusive to Poly and Turf?  Or in other words that said tenet does not apply to dirt, the Belmont Distance or some other exception? (That is a rhetorical question, but for others you can answer it if you wish.)

3. Must Curlin have matched a previous performance level in your application of assigning numbers to the Belmont Stakes based upon certain probabilities of horses pairing?

In summation, after announcing TGraph is consistent with their logical applications, are those that stated or believed that in any kind of position to remain credible upon that proclamation?  Even if they do like to cut up now and then?

I\'m very disappointed. I can\'t see the logic at all.

-------------------------------------------------------
> TGAB,
>
>
> Did you forget the slow pace symbol or did you
> guys think that the pace was normal, especially
> considering the speed of the track.
>
>
> Mike

[Silver Charm]

The numbers on the race look perfect to me.

Anybody who watched the stretch run and saw the effort Curlin gave know that giving him a slower figure in the Belmont means he would have X\'ed.

Curlins effort on Saturday was no X.

Considering this was the Filly\'s second race in three months and she will still be getting a small break in weights come Travers Day.

Means she will be primed up to go out and kick these Colts Asses one more time before she starts looking for older boys to pick on.........

[bobphilo]

Jerry,

Just to clarify - given that this was the only 2-turn race of the day and the pace was so slow, this would be the perfect race to cut loose and pretty much base the figures on the horses\' performance. Is that what you did?

Bob

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Seems to me your ignoring the seminal tenet. And they call me Contrarian. At least when I\'m contrary its value related.

Silver Charm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The numbers on the race look perfect to me.
>
> Anybody who watched the stretch run and saw the
> effort Curlin gave know that giving him a slower
> figure in the Belmont means he would have X\'ed.
>
> Curlins effort on Saturday was no X.
>
> Considering this was the Filly\'s second race in
> three months and she will still be getting a small
> break in weights come Travers Day.
>
> Means she will be primed up to go out and kick
> these Colts Asses one more time before she starts
> looking for older boys to pick on.........

[miff]

Chuck,

I don\'t get caught up in figs alone. The Belmont was a slow race in total, period.It is also noteworthy that RTR simply outbrushed Curlin the last quarter by a head bob, after \"working out\" a mile in app 1.40 on a very fast surface all day.Using the final time and coming to the fig awarded ONLY makes sense in the projection methodology because it did not happen on the track.You can look at past Belmonts that went faster raw times on SLOWER surfaces that did not get as good a figure as RTR(ground et al included). How can that be except by completely ignoring the clock and rewarding figs strictly off of past figs and what \"looks\" pretty on the graph.

The only way to come to these figs was to go off prior performances, e.g Tiago and ignore the pedestrian time. A slower legit fig is my preference in these cases with the appropriate sl pace designation.

I don\'t think that translates to RTR being a truly negative territory runner, except at a mile and a half(so far).I believe a good colt will wax her going a LEGIT fast race at say 1 1/8th rigth now.

Without saying more, I called the figs exactly before they were posted and discussed with a couple of fellow posters why they would be as they are.


Mike

[streetbull]

Perfect Drift wrote:

 I need to stop hearing how GREAT this race was... it was similar to the B.S. Blue Grass and any number is nothing more than conjecture. She was bred for the distance and able to provide a bit more acceleration than Curlin. The fact she was wide is moot since she was running slower than 90% of all workouts. TAP is planning the CCA Oaks (good move) and the Travers (her Waterloo). She doesn\'t want any part of Street Sense with ample rest at an honest pace over 10f at SAR.

I agree totally with Perfect Drift\'s comments about the Belmont race...

No running was done until the last 3 or 4 furlongs......The fact that Rags was bred for the 1 and 1/2  distance aided her significantly....

Regarding the numbers...there are always different perspectives.....
I do not want to light a fire in the bushes but here goes anyways....(These comments are my opinions only and any open discussions would be appreciated and most welcomed )

Sprints

SPRINT RACES HAVE THEIR OWN NUMBERS (5 furlongs to 7 furlongs).....

No matter what numbers you use or are using... a 100 beyer at 6 furlongs does not equate to a 100 beyer at a mile and a half....(On a footnote...over the years I have noticed that true mile and 1/4 horses can run 7 furlongs very well...Unbridled, Ferdinand, and Spectacular Bid come to mind....

Distance races (mile races up to a 1 1/8 distances are most comparables even though you can stretch it up to mile and 1/4 races)

The factors of pace are very important.....The Bluegrass race was immeasureable since it had a crawling pace...no significant running was done until the last couple of furlongs...

Races at mile and quarter and up are dependent so much on a horse\'s natural innate ability ( being bred for the distance much like a horse being bred for turf...)  This does not mean the horse cannot get the distance but more so being able to handle a certain early pace and still get home faster than the competitions.....

JMHO......

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Miff, I read the finish the same way you do. It was the Bluegrass all over again, but between two horses instead of 4.

I make the winner\'s race about a TGraph 3. I know what that means in regard to the others. But thats the way the cookie crumbles and the way it crumbles at distance exaggerates the margins and the offs.

[Silver Charm]

Miff wrote,

\"I believe a good colt will wax her going a LEGIT fast race at say 1 1/8th rigth now.\"

Miff care to name who those colts are.

Thanks

[fkach]

I would take Curlin over her in a rematch if you guaranteed me that the pace would be fast enough to prevent the race from turning into a 2-3 furlong sprint with both horses fresh and on approximately equal terms turning for home.

I am not trying to diminsh her performance. She was outstanding.

I just \"suspect\" that Curlin has a little more in the tank.

It\'s hard to tell that kind of thing when both horses finish so well. Overall ability doesn\'t always translate 100% equally into ability to finish well off a slow pace.

[miff]

Silver,

I think SS,Curlin and a rested, at his best HS would beat her.She is very long winded but has never run a \"legit\" fast fig like the colts, so far.

I think she is a terrific filly who may turn out to be any kind but it is dangerous to look at her Belmont fig and assess her as a \"negative\" performer.I hope they all show in the Travers and run their best.

Mike

[Silver Charm]

Miff,

Are you saying the TG Figures are not legitimate. ie-the last one. Perhaps TGJB  has something to say about that.

Her Oaks number was pretty damn good by all three main figure makers.

Maybe throw in Any Given Saturday if healthy and maybe one or two more.

But after those are we not really stretching things a bit........

[marcus]

I would venture to guess that Curlin\'s development curve is all through . Additionally , based on his numbers , a common sense view of his pattern , his spring campaign , and the overall trends in the TG negative number studies that Curlin will never get back to that big one  as a 3 yo if ever .
My best \"guess\" on the final Belmont numbers for Rags to Riches was about right and she seems ready to run better numbers going forward - however , Curlin\'s  near X effort at this juncture in his career must be viewed IMO as a very bad sign for his future prospects .