Breeders Cup Preview

NCT,

I understand your point. I guess it\'s a risk.

I totally dismissed the Belmont Stakes performance because I made that a hot competitive pace, he was out of his style by even being part of it, and it was 12F - which is something a lot of horses don\'t like.

There was a long gap after his next dull performance. So I assumed he came out of that race with a problem. He has had chronic physical problems.

I think the above interpretation was the key to undertanding that he was still highly likely to develop this year even though he hadn\'t shown much improvement from his early spring form through the summer of 2004. His physical problems and that trip prevented him from putting together a solid enough campaign to find out how good he really was. To me that\'s the bigger risk. Every morning when I read the DRF, I expect to see an article that says he\'s sore and will miss the Classic.  

Maybe I\'m a little biased, but I\'ve been very high on this horse since I saw his second start. I think he\'s been highly overrated at times relative to his accomplishments, but I think he hasn\'t been overrated relative to his potential.

One thing I\'m fairly certain about is that if I don\'t play RHT because the price isn\'t attractive enough or St Liam draws well etc... I won\'t be playing a deep closer that was the beneficiary of back to back fast paces. I\'d prefer playing a horse that closed down a quality 3YO that was loose in a slow pace.

[jbelfior]

CH--


I never like 1 1/4 dirt races as preps for another 1 1/4 race, especially those run at Belmont.

A too slow pace will dull their speed and an overly fast pace will make a horse like BORREGO look unbeatable in his next start. Chances are the pace will be average.

The 1 1/8 races are a better prep in that it tightens their speed more. You can\'t predict what the pinheads will do, but you have to assume a fairly average pace in the Classic. In that case, give me the guy who will be up near the pace.
SAINT LIAM and RHT both have a huge tactical advantage over BORREGO.

It\'s no accident that 15 of the 21 Classic winners did not come out of a 1 1/4 prep.


Good Luck,
Joe B.  

[miff]

On Varick Street, what equals negative -3.75

ROUGHLY:
Quarter  25.3

Half     50.3    

Three Qu.114.2

Mile     136.3

Mile&Qu. 202.4 (last quarter in 26.1 held)

Variant geeks had the surface minus 50( ie 2 and 1/2 lenghts slower than what they call par)with no other quasi two turn race to compare to.

Like I said before, carry 122 plus pounds and race wide and you\'re in TG negative territory almost regardless of what the adjusted raw time is.This classic \"phony wide\"fig, is probably correct by this \"racing\" flawed formula.


Having said that,Borrego joins the TG list of other rather nice but \"common\"performers who ran faster than Seattle Slew, Cigar, and many others with his Monsterous adjusted 2.02.2 performance at 10F.

[miff]

Class,

I somewaht agree but RHT looks a bit to me like a \"bute\" baby so far. I\'m sure we have all seen many runners regress with bute \"off\"

Miff,

Good point. Could be.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Miff, those fractions are not correct Raw Fractions. Borrego was a full 2.5 seconds faster at the 6 furlong pole. The Mile and Finish are clearly correct.

miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> On Varick Street, what equals negative -3.75
>
> ROUGHLY:
> Quarter  25.3
>
> Half     50.3    
>
> Three Qu.114.2
>
> Mile     136.3
>
> Mile&Qu. 202.4 (last quarter in 26.1 held)
>
> Variant geeks had the surface minus 50( ie 2 and
> 1/2 lenghts slower than what they call par)with no
> other quasi two turn race to compare to.

I take extreme issue with the above as well. That track was substantially slower for the JCGC than the Varick Geeks think. Tell them I\'ll sell them the true variant for a ticket and hotel for the event.

 
> Like I said before, carry 122 plus pounds and race
> wide and you\'re in TG negative territory almost
> regardless of what the adjusted raw time is.This
> classic \"phony wide\"fig, is probably correct by
> this \"racing\" flawed formula.

Belmont can be kind to wide trips, but Borrego ran wide and ran on. Didn\'t see an identifiable bias and I looked for an hour hypothesizing there was one.

> Having said that,Borrego joins the TG list of
> other rather nice but \"common\"performers who ran
> faster than Seattle Slew, Cigar, and many others
> with his Monsterous adjusted 2.02.2 performance at
> 10F.

Borrego is a modern horse. If those great horses were modern horses you\'d have to think they\'d beat him. But, remember how Dare and Go swooped by Cigar?

Borrego has no Mr. Prospector or Danzig in him. He is inbred 4x4 to Raise a Native, but hes missed no time from what i can determine. They have him a break after the Preakness to mature. They gave him time going into last years B.Cup because of the same reason. He\'s got a very nice sheet for this year. As a four year old he got close enough to his top in two starts. He\'s had off races, but no bounces and he has a progressive forging pattern since and the last race was something serious horse fans should view repeatedly. I think its good. Everyone is free to draw their own conclusions.

[miff]

Chuck,

You are not projecting. If Gomez \"rides\"Borrego hard to the wire in 2.02 flat, Jerry gives him negative 7 or 8.Borrego would be the fastest horse in TG history with that performance.That\'s beyond ridiculous.

I thought the track played slowish a few lengths, myself.

[miff]

Chuck,

Incidentally, I meant adjusted 2.02 ie, 6+ lengths faster(3+TG points)at the distance.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Yeah, and I think I miss spoke the four furlong mark is where Borrego was faster ...i\'ll do all the fractions soon.

I thought he could have shaved a second off his close. But thats hard to gauge. Maybe he was doing the best he would have anyway. If he could shave time, a negative 5 may be in his repertoire now. What I see is a late developer who tipped his potential early.
 
I understand what youre saying. To me all that matters is identifying him speed wise vs. his peers.

[NoCarolinaTony]

TGJB,

Was currious how did your score \"The Daddy\" performance in the La. Derby This one was wide all the way around. Just currious.

NC Tony

[TGJB]

Tony-- we\'re going to hold some stuff back for the BC seminar, but it\'s hard to believe WYD ran a relevant figure, given that field and the close finish.

[TGJB]

CTC-- that\'s actually a very good call with Imperialism and Grand Reward. I could have gone a little faster to have them pair their tops,but they both run in a very tight (and similar) range. Since putting them in that range put them dead on with Suave pairing his top, and only gave one horse a new top, and didn\'t even involve anything too inventive in terms of the day as a whole, it was clear.

There was no way you could logically make the race so fast as to give Imp, GR and Suave new tops. Likewise, there is no argument to really make for doing it so that Borrego was the only horse that at least ran his previous top, especially in a GI stake. If you added more, a) everyone except him would run well off their top, and b) what would you tie it to? What would be the rationale? The whole range of possibilities went from add 1/2 (Suave pairs his most recent, not his top), to take off 3/4 (GR pairs his top). I liked the one I used the best, and it had the added advantage of being between the other two.

Miff, if you don\'t believe that 126 pounds and a wide trip matter, you are using the wrong product. And if you keep repeating the same things over and over, after I have answered them a few dozen times, I\'m going to start deleting them-- I don\'t want to have to keep answering them, and I won\'t let them stand unanswered as if they have merit. Open your own website, with the variant geeks (www.variantgeeks.com? You don\'t owe me anything for that).

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Thanx again, not on my interpretation, but on providing the final figs of all the JCGC horses. When i see the adjusted numbers I\'m always amazed at the finishing position significance of wide and weight.

TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CTC-- that\'s actually a very good call with
> Imperialism and Grand Reward. I could have gone a
> little faster to have them pair their tops,but
> they both run in a very tight (and similar) range.
> Since putting them in that range put them dead on
> with Suave pairing his top, and only gave one
> horse a new top, and didn\'t even involve anything
> too inventive in terms of the day as a whole, it
> was clear.
>
> There was no way you could logically make the race
> so fast as to give Imp, GR and Suave new tops.
> Likewise, there is no argument to really make for
> doing it so that Borrego was the only horse that
> at least ran his previous top, especially in a GI
> stake. If you added more, a) everyone except him
> would run well off their top, and b) what would
> you tie it to? What would be the rationale? The
> whole range of possibilities went from add 1/2
> (Suave pairs his most recent, not his top), to
> take off 3/4 (GR pairs his top). I liked the one I
> used the best, and it had the added advantage of
> being between the other two.
>
> Miff, if you don\'t believe that 126 pounds and a
> wide trip matter, you are using the wrong product.
> And if you keep repeating the same things over and
> over, after I have answered them a few dozen
> times, I\'m going to start deleting them-- I don\'t
> want to have to keep answering them, and I won\'t
> let them stand unanswered as if they have merit.
> Open your own website, with the variant geeks
> (www.variantgeeks.com? You don\'t owe me anything
> for that).
>
>
>
> Edited 2 times. Last edit at 10/05/05 01:37PM by
> TGJB.

[FORTKNOX]

Miff,

Look, a lot of horses have run wide with heavy impost in G1 company and have lost for doing it, even though they ran the best final-time fig.  And, even if they run back to their big \"wide fig\", they\'ll still lose again if they run wide again, even if they pair their big final-time fig.  

The point is that the best fig does not necessarily mean the best horse AT THE WIRE.  And TGJB has never preached that the top fig horse, even if likely to pair or improve, is necessarily the sure winner.  Indeed, the horse could pair by running wide again and lose again to a slower final-time fig horse taht hugged the rail.

The crucial point you seem to be missing when you mocking JBs figs is that the best TG fig horse of all time is not necessarily the best horse of all time -- and JB has never pretended otherwise.  In fact, we might reasonably expect that the best horse of all time won\'t be the best fig of all time, though he could be.

So, you are mocking TG for giving wide-runners big figs, but your mockery is based on the strawman that TG is saying that the best fig horse is necessarily the best real-world horse, which he is not.

Nevertheless, the TG figs are very useful because big scores are often had when one of these talented wide-running, also-ran closers manages to close into fast pace with \"Red Sea parting along the rail\" kind of trip.  Then, the chronic big-fig loser suddenly becomes a big-fig W.  The trick is predicting when the wide-fig horse (big TG #, weak Beyer #) is going to get a rail trip and a big score.

[miff]

FORTKNOX,

Thanks for your take on interpreting the figs. I\'m aware and agree with you but that was not the issue.I would respond but having recently been \"deleted\" by Jerry, I feel that only those who mainly agree and champion Jerrys\'personal opinions/theories about figs/racing are welcome to post here.No one else knows anything about racing/figs period!!


Good Luck!!