TG Figures for 2007 Belmont

[BitPlayer]

TGJB -

My bad on the speed chart for one- and two-turn races.  The following is the paragraph from your old post (April 2004) I was thinking of, and I see now that I remembered it incorrectly:

\"Well, there are ways to check this stuff-- Ragozin used to have a statistical check while I was there, we do one a little more accurate here, and as part of some really innovative stuff we are putting in place now we will be doing something even more sophisticated. But we ran the check as recently as this past February for not just So Cal but all tracks, and it works like this-- you look at the winning figure for all the older claimers at a track over the last couple of years, break them out and average them at every distance (to see if you have a distance out of line), and combine all the one turn races and compare them to the two turn races. At the circuits where I do the figures myself (about 10 now) EVERY SINGLE SPRINT/ROUTE RELATIONSHIP CAME UP WITHIN HALF A POINT. A couple of the smaller tracks done by others came up with a slightly bigger spread (about 1 1/2 points), and we are fixing those up.\"

Thanks for your thoughts on the other issues.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

You really think that both Rags ran a legitimate Negative 1.2 and is going to improve or run negative 3\'s or 4\'s off that Belmont? (My mother never believed me, but I told her this handicapping thing against others was going to be easy.)

Let me undertake one more little demonstration for you and Basket77.

Rags Half Brother ran the Belmont in 2.27.86, he scored a 1.2, which is 7.5 lengths slower in a full second faster finish.

Afleet Alex won in 2.28.75, (The same time as Rags), beat his rivals by seven lengths but was scored 2.5 lengths slower than Rags.

Birdstone won in 2.27.50, in a race with swift fractions beating Smarty Jones by a length. Birdstone is scored 7.5 lengths slower than Rags in time that equates to nearly 7 lengths FASTER.

Empire Maker ran in 2.28.26, which is a half second faster than RAGS, but Tgraph thinks Rags is over 3 lengths the better.

This just goes on and on. At Point Given the faery tale stops. Even TGraph doesn\'t think Rags could have beaten Point Given. Anyone else getting an Andy Beyer flashback here?

Now that the Negative 1 1/2 is beginning to lose all credibility like a bad war that everyone was all for initially, let me ask again. Does Anyone really believe that Rags stepped up out of her division, ran the most challenging distance race of her life in a glacial pace upon a very fast track in slow time and scored, by two full points, the best figure of her career vs colts? Running faster than every colt in the history of the Belmont except Point Given and presumably Secretariat? Does anyone remotely believe that? If you do, I have some WMD whereabouts information you may be interested in.

\"Three\"

Say it, Learn it, Live it, Love it...because its the truth.

CtC  


marcus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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 .

[streetbull]

I don\'t think that any horse will ever come close to Secretariat\'s awesome performance in the 1972\'s Belmont....running the distance in 2:24 and change after pressing a mind boggling early pace of 109 and change and the mile mark of 134 and change...This was perhaps the greatest distance performance of all time.....

Funny thing about Point Given was that Bob Baffert had a strong, legitimate chance aiming Congaree in the Derby in 2001 but Unbridled\'s Song fast early fractions did them both in setting up Monarchos\' fast Derby time....(I don\'t think Baffert will ever probably admit this fact.  Up until Point Given\'s win in the Belmont...The Belmont was the only Triple Crown race that Baffert wasn\'t able to win....Point Given should have been a Triple Crown winner in 2001...

Funny thing about numbers/figures is that you will always have intense debate regarding form cycles...and which races were pairs or which races were major efforts.....I think this aspect will always be a major eyesore when one is constructing variants and/or numbers/figures...One can have a strong opinion regarding a horse\'s form cycle...But it is always that second horse or horses that throws a monkey wrench into the debate...These debates about numbers will always be never ending....Personally I really believe in the concepts of form cycles and bounce patterns that are some of the foundations of the Thorograph.....The good thing is that this Belmont\'s distance is only one race in an unique distance that will hardly be run again this year\'s unless Todd Pletcher runs his filly against colts in the BC Turf at a mile and 1/2 later on in the year....But the fact remains that Rags To Riches came home with the fastest last fraction in recent Belmont runnings....(Personally, I think Curlin ran a sub par race in the Belmont...In looking back on his form cycle analysis, I think that Curlin was trained to come from behind in the Derby along with all the trouble that he encountered in the race itself.  Curlin ran a huge race in the Preakness)

[marcus]

CTC2 , I can honestly say that I don\'t know how to make speed figures and am probably much more talented as a \"guesser\" of numbers  than I would be as an actual \"figure maker\" .  

I\'m not really qualified  to ( intelligently and meaningfully ) discuss with you the relationships between previous Belmont numbers , their final times and respective beaten lengths etc - however , I\'m beginning to understand your position in this \"3\" business but still haven\'t been persuaded though I do appreciate the effort made to articulate your \"view\" .

I do understand a little that final times are relative and a function of many factors other than just when the clock starts and stops . fkach made an interesting point about a horses \"proper handling\" that I\'m taking under advisement - but I\'m skeptical in Curlins case  .

I remember you saying earlier that you\'ve seen many AP Indy runners fold in routes - but this Filly didn\'t . Personally , I do expect to see better numbers coming from her if she continues racing and why not . Besides - lets don\'t kid ourselves here - women run the world ...

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Thats it? Your entire argument comes down to the Belmont can be scored so fast  because Rags came home so quick? The very same thing happened in the Bluegrass and the race was adjusted slower by Tgraph because of slow pace. Et Tu Brutte?You\'ve pulled one grain of sand from the beach and decided to analyze what the beach is comprised of from that single grain.

I\'m fully aware of how changing/different track speeds can alter these calculations, but the irony is Tgraph has already staked out a position that for this race, they make their numbers off the horses, not the track, so the variable of fast or slow track is not even considered for the Belmont Stakes.

Lastly let me state that I did not factor the previous Belmont winners I mentioned without reference to the tracks they ran upon. Heres another one for you. Point Given ran his Belmont in 2.26.53 which is roughly 12 lengths faster than Rags raw time. Tgraph has Rags within a point of Point Given.

In the end you have a filly running a 2 point Career Top in 2.28.75, which is on the slow side of Belmont Times. It came upon a very fast track with an extremely slow pace. It is the strangest figure I\'ve ever seen produced here and its getting stranger all the time.

What did the Crosstown Rags score this race?


streetbull Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don\'t think that any horse will ever come close
> to Secretariat\'s awesome performance in the 1972\'s
> Belmont....running the distance in 2:24 and change
> after pressing a mind boggling early pace of 109
> and change and the mile mark of 134 and
> change...This was perhaps the greatest distance
> performance of all time.....
>
> Funny thing about Point Given was that Bob Baffert
> had a strong, legitimate chance aiming Congaree in
> the Derby in 2001 but Unbridled\'s Song fast early
> fractions did them both in setting up Monarchos\'
> fast Derby time....(I don\'t think Baffert will
> ever probably admit this fact.  Up until Point
> Given\'s win in the Belmont...The Belmont was the
> only Triple Crown race that Baffert wasn\'t able to
> win....Point Given should have been a Triple Crown
> winner in 2001...
>
> Funny thing about numbers/figures is that you will
> always have intense debate regarding form
> cycles...and which races were pairs or which races
> were major efforts.....I think this aspect will
> always be a major eyesore when one is constructing
> variants and/or numbers/figures...One can have a
> strong opinion regarding a horse\'s form
> cycle...But it is always that second horse or
> horses that throws a monkey wrench into the
> debate...These debates about numbers will always
> be never ending....Personally I really believe in
> the concepts of form cycles and bounce patterns
> that are some of the foundations of the
> Thorograph.....The good thing is that this
> Belmont\'s distance is only one race in an unique
> distance that will hardly be run again this year\'s
> unless Todd Pletcher runs his filly against colts
> in the BC Turf at a mile and 1/2 later on in the
> year....But the fact remains that Rags To Riches
> came home with the fastest last fraction in recent
> Belmont runnings....(Personally, I think Curlin
> ran a sub par race in the Belmont...In looking
> back on his form cycle analysis, I think that
> Curlin was trained to come from behind in the
> Derby along with all the trouble that he
> encountered in the race itself.  Curlin ran a huge
> race in the Preakness)

[msola1]

Just wanted to add a couple of cents: if a horse puts in the same effort at a mile on asphalt as at a mile on thick cloying mud, the times will be quite different, but the number will be the same, all else equal (i.e., wind, path). So the slower--i.e., stuck-in-the-mud--effort will produce the same number.

If I understand the methodology...

[fkach]

CTC,

If you assigned a 3 to RTR, you would also have to assign much slower figures to the rest of the field. If you then compared your new adjusted figures to the horses\' prior figures, it would look like the whole field bounced to the moon.

If you want to argue that the whole field did run slower than usual because of the slow pace, I\'d be willing to buy that as a possibiity.

I am not willing to buy the possibility that the whole field ran sub par. It doesn\'t take exceptional visual skills or even much common sense to suspect that RTR ran her best lifetime effort in the Belmont. It was an outstanding visual performance, backed by an outstanding finish on the clock, against a high quality colt. This was obviously the best field she ever beat and she did it while losing some ground. How could it not be her best lifetime effort?

Again, if you want to say the whole field didn\'t run as fast as scored because of the pace, that\'s possible. However, all you are doing is reopening the debate about whether figures should reflect performance or speed. The speed of the race is debateable, her performance is not!  It was clearly her best lifetime effort!

[miff]

msola1 wrote:

\"Just wanted to add a couple of cents: if a horse puts in the same effort at a mile on asphalt as at a mile on thick cloying mud, the times will be quite different, but the number will be the same, all else equal (i.e., wind, path). So the slower--i.e., stuck-in-the-mud--effort will produce the same number.

If I understand the methodology\"



....Yes, except the Belmont was run more on an asphalt track than a thick mud track and was STILL raw time slow.That\'s the whole debate.


Mike

[JAKE]

Though Len hasn\'t posted the Ragozin numbers, I believe that Rags received a
4 3/4 and Curlin a 5 3/4.

[streetbull]

CTC...

I have enjoyed reading all of your opinions on this board except the harbingers and arrows that you spewed once in a while....Understanding this game when it has been filled with naysayers and half-truths has been a great passion of mines.....

My statement that Rags came home very fast was not a statement regarding the numbers purported by Thoro-graph.....It was a statement that Rags ran a visually impressive race for the distance and the competition..... Without regards to any numbers here or on the sheets...I think that Point Given was pointed to the Belmont as his major effort race .....I still believe that Baffert was aiming Congaree for the Derby.....This kind of belief is also held for Lukas\'s Thunder Gulch who threw the Preakness to allow his stablemate Timber Country to win a Crowned Jewel Grade I race for breeding purposes..

I remembered when I used to use Today\'s Racing Digest\'s numbers....It was not the best but it was usable until they started screwing up the pars and variants because they (powers that be...) decided to change their formula mid-meet during the summer Hollywood Park meet years ago....I think this was when Brohammer took over the reins....I am no expert in numbers making nor in making variants....But I know a good thing about the theory of numbers in terms of ENERGy.....expended in a race.........(Personally, I think that any numbers made using last fraction as the main variable like the Today\'s racing digest is folly and delusional...But like a used car salesman...they only sell what they have in the lot, monnnnn....)

I am a firm believer in energy expended whether early or in a sustained fraction according to the programs originated from the Sartin Methodology....I am here because you have to understand form cycles in one\'s overall handicapping approach... ..If I would be forced in a corner and squeezed for my honest opinion...I would have to admit that any numbers not considering the early fractions of a race is not accurate....I say this statement for myself only...Like anything we learned in life....We can look at something as half-baked or half-full or half-empty....Some methodology make their beliefs or programs work with what they got...It doesn\'t have to be near perfect but they make it work with what they got until they improved upon their programs or methodology....

Meanwhile I am still awaiting a perfect numbers/figures that will paint beautiful and formful cycles...

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

I\'m not arguing to project the whole field sub-par. (Though the time of the race on that track was clearly sub-par.) I\'m merely asserting if you add one more horse  to the existing five that Tgraph currently scores with sub-par Belmont efforts it aligns the results with reality. That horse of course, is Curlin.

 

thfkach Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CTC,
>
> If you assigned a 3 to RTR, you would also have to
> assign much slower figures to the rest of the
> field. If you then compared your new adjusted
> figures to the horses\' prior figures, it would
> look like the whole field bounced to the moon.
>
> If you want to argue that the whole field did run
> slower than usual because of the slow pace, I\'d be
> willing to buy that as a possibiity.
>
> I am not willing to buy the possibility that the
> whole field ran sub par. It doesn\'t take
> exceptional visual skills or even much common
> sense to suspect that RTR ran her best lifetime
> effort in the Belmont. It was an outstanding
> visual performance, backed by an outstanding
> finish on the clock, against a high quality colt.
> This was obviously the best field she ever beat
> and she did it while losing some ground. How could
> it not be her best lifetime effort?
>
> Again, if you want to say the whole field didn\'t
> run as fast as scored because of the pace, that\'s
> possible. However, all you are doing is reopening
> the debate about whether figures should reflect
> performance or speed. The speed of the race is
> debateable, her performance is not!  It was
> clearly her best lifetime effort!

[TGJB]

Your \"logic\" on this subject so far is your analysis of pedigree, and the time of the race compared to races not just on other days, but other years-- disregarding wind, ground loss, how the figures fitted, and even my comment that after measuring the variables the time itself relative to even the one turn races came up very close to what I gave it, with no adjustment. The measure of the figures is not just what the winner gets-- it\'s what everybody gets, relative to their figure histories, and to some degree what they get in the future.

Give it a rest.

[Michael D.]

Now is not the time to take a strong stand against a fast Belmont Stakes fig.

I don\'t make it a fast speed fig, but I make it a fast performance fig.

Take out the stumble, factor a 2w/2w trip, and picture JR using the filly from the 1/2 mile pole, and she puts up a mid 2:26 number.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Thats not what I said. I said that a single race around two turns, at a distance
that none of these horses has ever run, in an era
when pedigrees are more geared towards shorter
distances, when the pace was very slow, cannot be
SCORED FASTER than the subject horses Tops.

Obviously, Curlin was sitting upon and ran a larger regression and Rags did not career top in those circumstances. I have a high degree of confidence in my position and believe that such things CAN be predicted.

Some things are self evident.


[/fkach Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Silver Charm Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You guys with this 3 business are nuts if you
> > think the filly regressed from the Oaks and the
> > entire field X\'ed.
>
> I think some people believe the figures assigned
> might reflect the ability of the horses but not
> the actual time of the race (because of the pace).
>
>
> What I find ironic is CTC makes a pretty good case
> that a single race around two turns, at a distance
> that none of these horses has ever run, in an era
> when pedigrees are more geared towards shorter
> distances, when the pace was very slow, cannot be
> projected with a high degree of confidence off of
> past figures. >
> He then proceeds to tell us the figure should be a
> 3 as if he has solved all the complexities.
>
> It\'s pretty obvious that Curlin and RTR both ran
> very well. They were well clear of the rest of the
> horses, both exceptionally game, finished
> exceptionally fast etc...  
>
> Do we really need to know the exact figure they
> earned in a 12F slow paced race to evaluate them
> later in the season under much different
> conditions?
>
> The Beyer and TG figures look cool to me. ;-)

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

First off, if you think I\'m contesting the assigned figure to stir the pot you\'re mistaken.

Secondly your \"Carson City Derby\" with 10 entrants trying two turns and 10 poles for the first time in their lives is very much what was referred to conceptually. Running with Career tops of 2 at six poles would not result in any of the ten running a Zed at 10 furlongs. The Carson City Derby winner would score out at about a 6. If you ran 100 Carson City\'s and included a few that had scored faster races than 2\'s you might get a couple to run a 2 at 10 furlongs. But, if you ran them on three races in five weeks you wouldn\'t even get that 2 and you\'d break down half the Carson City\'s trying to.

Lastly, like Andy Beyer\'s credibility and Rags Negative Number, Carson City is gone now. She ran a slow Belmont.

BitPlayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TGJB -
>
> I assume the \"3\" is just Chuckles being Chuckles,
> but his and other posts do raise a question I am
> curious about.
>
> Several posts in recent weeks have questioned figs
> earned at classic distances based, at least in
> part, on the premise that since a particular horse
> (or the horse population in general) is not bred
> to go long, their TG figs should decline, or at
> least not improve, as they stretch out to 10
> furlongs or further.
>
> To me, the fallacy in that argument is that TG is
> based on a relative, not an absolute, scale.
> Since you are doing numbers based on the horses,
> what matters is how well a horse stretches out
> relative to its peers (who are also
> distance-challenged) not relative to some absolute
> standard (such as a long-standing par time).
>
> For example, suppose that on one if its gimmick
> days, Calder were to run the \"Carson City Stakes\"
> for offspring of Carson City (is he still alive?)
> or some other brilliant sprint sire, with
> eligibility being conditioned on having a TG top
> of between 1 and 2 and never having raced  at a
> mile or more.  Suppose further that the race was
> run at 10 furlongs on the dirt and that it was the
> only dirt race on the card.  Presumably, in order
> to give most of the entrants figures that are
> consistent with their prior tops, you would give
> the winner a new top.  Chuckles would then
> complain that a son (or daughter) of Carson City
> was unlikely to have run a new top at 10 furlongs,
> but you would have been faithful to your
> methodology and TG users would understand how you
> got to the number.
>
> What I am curious about is your reference to your
> Belmont figs being consistent with your \"speed
> chart.\"  You have in the past referred to
> regularly checking your figures at various tracks
> to make sure you keep one- and two-turn races in
> alignment.  I assume your efforts are reflected in
> your speed charts.  If the breed is becoming more
> distance-challenged, presumably you should have
> seen that reflected in the relationship between
> one- and two-turn races captured in your speed
> charts, particularly at the tracks with larger
> circumferences (Belmont being an extreme example;
> Saratoga being perhaps a better one).
>
> All of this leads to two questions.  First, have
> you seen such a trend?  Second, given the small
> number of races run at two turns at Belmont, how
> reliable do you think the chart is in that case?
>
> Thanks for your time.
>
> P.S. Your spell-checker objects to \"TG\".