So George pointed out to me a whole bunch of posts on the Rag board I missed. Anyone who followed the discussion with CH here knows how to evaluate his comments there, but a couple of other things briefly--
1-- Donaldson and parallel time: Come on, Janis, you\'re smarter than that, or used to be before you flipped out. Think about the mechanics of posting a page from a book from 1936. Then go figure out what else parallel could mean. In fact, on page 80 (different chapter), he goes into a good explanation of why you CAN\'T use a flat time relationship between distances, and why a time interval means different things at different distances. This is you making assumptions and being wrong, yet again. Howl on.
2-- The dreaded Sportstat study was done about 15 years ago, back when we still had handwritten figures etc., and the guy who did the study (Jim Bayle) said at the time that he didn\'t think the study was indicative. So he collected a whole lot of data from us, Ragozin, Beyer and others for a YEAR about 5 years ago to do another, then decided he was too busy betting to do the study (seriously). At the time everyone in Ragozin\'s office told Ragozin not to compete with us, but he went ahead and got involved anyway. More power to him, boo for Jim Bayle. Hopefully someone impartial will do a study at some point, or (gasp) we can have the long term handicapping contest I proposed at the Expo.
3-- \"Free figures from the Red Board Room\". That\'s pretty funny stuff. One of the two guys saying it has no clue, the other does but absolutely doesn\'t care what\'s true or not any more-- it\'s all about tactics and rage. Anyone who thinks we are giving away anything that can\'t be bought for $25 go try to do it, then see whether you got it right and whether it was worth the trouble. For someone to get a day even close to right would take many hours of work, and that\'s just for one day, which nets them very little. And there\'s nothing there they can\'t buy on the stands or on the site anyway.
4-- \"Too many pair ups\"-- oh no, not again. Well, there may be one or two who weren\'t around for all the discussions where I exploded that one, maybe you\'ll fool those guys. Because you know better, right? I mean, as Alydar you explained it all to Patent, remember? Before I tossed you off this site for being a bad boy, you flipped out, and Friedman, whom you had attacked ferociously on questions of both competence and morality, suddenly became your hero. Remember?
5-- Father of speed figures-- as you yourself said in posts long ago, MANY came before Ragozin. As far as some of the things you are giving him credit for, this is you being wrong, YET AGAIN. Connie Merjos showed Ragozin hand timing, runups, live wind, etc., and had a very good speed chart, and Connie damn sure didn\'t invent any of it-- he\'ll be the first to tell you that. Was Donaldson\'s speed chart perfect? No, as I said when I first brought it up (\"History Lesson\", on the home page). Did Donaldson make great figures? I doubt it. Was he the father of speed figures? No, by his own account-- but he wasn\'t publishing an infommercial, as Ragozin was. You should know better than to take it seriously-- but wait a minute, you do know better, don\'t you?
Ragozin\'s figures are heavily flawed. Does that make me the modern father of speed figures? Cool!
