BB posters poll

[HP]

\"how many of you think SFF, in her 2004 form, was more than eight lengths faster at 10f than sunday silence in his 1989 form. how many of you think SFF, in her 2004 form, was four lengths faster at 10f than unbridled, in his 1990 form? just curious.\"

I believe it as much as I have to.  It\'s Jerry\'s database, and I know he cares about it.  He\'s looked at every race at every track every day for a long time.  He\'s given some plausible explanations.  I can\'t see any profit motive in his \"findings.\"  I would bet Jerry remembered something about making the Unbridled figure when he made the SFFlying figure.  He sees what he sees.  Maybe on a 30 year scale, Unbridled was a little slow and SFF is fast.  

HP

>the problem is SSF\'s 10f race. rags has it much slower than TG, and i\'m pretty sure all other figure makers don\'t have it fast either (i will check that). <

I did not study TG\'s, Rag\'s, Beyer\'s, or Logic\'s figure for that race. However....

This was probably another in a long list of races where the pace killed the front runner and a mediocre horse got up for the win. Then, rather than assigning the winner with the mediocre figure it deserved and the dueler(s) with a lower figure than usual because it was used up by the pace, the dueler(s) was given its typical figure - which is faster than it deserved. That results in an inflated figure for the winner.

This is one reason why not looking at the impact of pace and the increased competitiveness of better fields when you are making projections leads to faster and faster speed figures over time.  

This was the Azeri race isn\'t it? If so this pace ws obvious.

I could see a GREAT older filly being better than top 3yos in spring, but SFF is a mediocre/good older filly and there\'s no way that her 10F race was \"much much better\" than Easy Goer and Sunday Silence who were both above average. IMO, this a silly conversation. No Way!



Post Edited (12-14-04 11:33)

Not ony that, but I was at Gulfstrean for the BC and Sunday Silence won under a strong hand ride. Day beat the hell out of Easy Goer and couldn\'t get there.

Sunday Silence was more tractable, had better short distance acceleration, and handled turns better. Those are intangibles that don\'t show up in figures but often decide races when horses have similar ability.

Easy Goer beat Sunday Silence at his home track, where there are big sweeping turns, at 12 furlongs, on a deep and tiring surface that \"if anything\" was favoring closers on the outside all day.



Post Edited (12-14-04 09:24)

[jimbo66]

CtC,

This reminds me of your discussion of this year\'s 3-year old class.  I respect your opinion, but there really are times when the view is not supported by any kind of facts.

I know there are a lot of Easy Goer fans out there and I respect \"fans\" of this game.  But the FACTS are that Sunday Silence beat him three out of four.  And, the one time time Easy Goer won, it was his home track at a distance that is rarely run in the US on dirt.  I have been hearing crying for years about Pat Day\'s ride in the Preakness and the sloppy track in the Derby and the speed favoring track in the BC Classic, but all that really does is prove the point that Sunday Silence was more versatile.  Surface, distance, bias aside, he was a better horse than Easy Goer.

It really borders on ridiculous that you call Sunday Silence \"questionable at the distance\" and you in earlier posts you don\'t find Lion Heart queationable at the distance.  Can that logic possibly be right?

[Michael D.]

if you were to put sunday silence in a race against lion heart at 10f, you must be getting at least ten lengths from TG #\'s if you take SS.......... a lot of different opinions out there about SS and EG, and most of the discussions turn heated. EG had real bad legs, right from the start. if day had ridden him harder, would he have lasted so long, and run so many brilliant races after the derby? in my opinion, if you put them on a track together, side by side, EG would have beaten SS at any distance. but that is not what horse racing is. big horse races usually involve a lot of horses, and most of the races are run over small 1m ovals that just didn\'t fit EG\'s frame and style. given what US horse racing is all about, sunday silence was the clear winner in the battle.



Post Edited (12-14-04 12:50)

[jimbo66]

Would love to get 10 lengths from Lionheart with Sunday Silence.  These \"cross generational\" comparisons do tend to support your case Michael.  At least those comparisons in the last 20 years, I have trouble going past 15-20 years and viewing the comparisons as legitimate.

[Michael D.]

the older generation stuff it tough. TG  does not have figs on some of the greats i bring up (\'bid for example), but given his posts, and his figs from \'81 up, he clearly believes that there has been a generational improvement in the breed over the years, and the improvemet is across the board, at all distances. i repsect the TG product as much as anyone, but i can\'t buy this theory when it extends to the races 10f and up.

[TGJB]

Briefly, I have work to do:

1-- You can always challenge an individual figure that someone assigned, especially one run at an unusual distance (like 1 1/4). I think I got the SSF figure right, but that\'s not the point, which is...

2-- Michael, you did not compare SS and SSF to get to your 8 lengths. You compared ONE race run by one against ONE by the other. Not only was SS\'s Derby run in a lake, but he was a spring 3yo. SSF was an older mare, on her best day. We have found, looking at tens of thousands of examples (see the average sire stats) that horses as a group improve about 3 points from 3 to 4, and another point after that, on average. From spring 3yo top to older top, therefore, improvement would average about 6 points (2/3 of the 3yo year), so you would figure a top older male running at the point SSF ran that figure would be about 6 points faster than a top spring 3yo. On the other hand, SSF is a filly, which the same studies show us average 3 points slower than colts. So on balance, she would figure to be 3 points faster (6 lengths at this distance), if they were equivalent against their divisions. And this has nothing to do with generational improvement.

But again, you didn\'t choose them both on their best day. You chose an off race for SS even during that spring-- he ran significantly better both before and after.

Point being, bad comparison. Nobody here said \"Storm Flag Flying is 8 lengths better than Sunday Silence\".

>Point being, bad comparison. Nobody here said \"Storm Flag Flying is 8 lengths better than Sunday Silence\".<

Your points are well taken.

In my comments I noted that SS and EG were spring 3yos.

However, SSF is at best a mediocre older filly. She barely beat Azeri after that one  used herself up in a 109 and change duel at a distance she doesn\'t even want.    

EG and SS may have been spring 3yos, but they were above average ones. There is no way I am going to believe that SSF\'s race at 10F puts her on the same planet as SS and EG during that spring let alone capable of beating them.



Post Edited (12-14-04 14:43)

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

The Derby was weak, SS caught his track at Hallandale. He staggered everywhere else. Actually, he got punch drunk in the Derby too. He\'s sired some to run 10 marks, but not here. Not dirt. You don\'t remember Pat Day\'s remarks it seems, but his remarks weren\'t necessary to explain a couple of those races.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

CH,

You might want to watch that Classic again closely. I think SS was a whip sulker if I\'m not mistaken. Similar to Northern Dancer.

CtC

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

SS would get devoured by todays TBreds...Goer would have a chance, depending on the track.

[jimbo66]

CtC,

This year\'s Cardinals baseball team would have crushed the 1989 A\'s team.  However, this year\'s Redsox team would have not shot against the 89 A\'s.

The Panthers of 2003 would have crushed the Steel Curtain Steelers of the 70\'s.  But the Pats of 2003 had not shot.

And, Goer could compete today, but Sunday Silence would be devoured.

CTC,

It\'s possible that SS didn\'t like the whip but that doesn\'t change the fact that he won under a hand ride that wasn\'t all that vigorous while Day was all out and couldn\'t get there.

Easy Goer fans will deny reality forever.
:-)

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Sunday was all out to catch and run down Blushing John. McCarron stated he was doing all he could possibly do. The track carried John a long way. They were in a life and death battle and one jump past the wire Goer was in front five jumps. SS won, thats what counts. The best horse doesn\'t always win, sometimes circumstances determine the winner. Its races like those that separate handicappers and I respect those that bet S.S. with conviction on The B.C. The bias, Goers bad break and Pat Day were the difference. Bottom line, there was little value in betting that matchup. Although I did have the Belmont large and straight and was positive Goer would win easily. Bet very lightly on the Derby due to the conditions.

Which brings up one other issue. War Emblem never had a chance, but its interesting to note that both Funny Cide and Smarty Jones were ambushed by horses that finished in front of them in the Belmont. All\'s fair in fair horseracing, but I think there should be a disincentive for horses to run in the Derby, skip the Preakness and reappear in the Belmont. Maybe an \"incentive\" is the way to prevent it. I\'m thinking a \"bonus\" for the aggregate placings in all three races. You can skip the Preakness, but you get no \"bonus\" points if you do. As a matter of fact you lose \"2\" points. That\'d do it.

Breed some stamina into these horses or lessen the reward.


CtC



Post Edited (12-14-04 21:47)