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.pdf22.68, 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-34063I 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
