TG Figures for 2007 Belmont

[miff]

Chuck,

I kinda thought the figs would come out the way they did, I won\'t elaborate on why.Looking at the Belmont from a racing perspective, I thought RTR paired and the rest follow off her considering weight, ground, beaten lenghts.It was a VERY slow pace and the horses could not make up the time to run to their norm, imo kinda like  the Blue Grass.

Looking at the absolutely empty performance by HS, for example it is hard to believe that he ran only two points off his fast Preakness try.From the quarter pole to the wire he lost app 11 lengths to the top two and only went back a couple of points??.I read where Gomez said at the 3/8ths he was excited that he was going to win only to press down and have no horse, again only a two point regression despite pedestrian splits up to that point(mile in 1.40).HS did no running at any point, just look at the race.

I did not research this myself but someone told me this was the only modern Belmont run where the fastest quarter in the entire race was 23.4. The track was +60 by the variants geeks(means that you add .60 to the raw time to adjust for the speed of the track for the day)


Having said that, the very special distance of the Belmont makes looking at those figs, going forward, not very relevant unless they are running a mile and a half.I don\'t think that RTR is any kind of fraud, I think she\'s terrific.


Mike

[miff]

Silver,


Look at the time of the race and the speed of the track all day and draw your own conclusion. I did not make up the time or the splits.Fig guys are in a tough spot with these slow paced races.Mark Hopkins(beyer speed figs) was forced to change RTR previous because of the Belmont,regardless of the time.They looked at where they all finished in relation to norm and tossed the teletimer. I understand it, just don\'t agree with it.

Yes, AGS may come back a top colt. I know they were very high on him in Jan/Feb.
I did not mean to infer that any 3yr old colt could wax RTR, I think she\'s great and would probably beat most if not all of them going very long. I question how she would do running shorter/ with faster splits where her apparent superior stamina is not an overriding factor as it appeared in the Belmont.

Mike

[fkach]

>They looked at where they all finished in relation to norm and tossed the teletimer. I understand it, just don\'t agree with it. <

This kind of thing is always an issue because some people want a performance figure and some people just want a speed figure that they can adjust subjectively for themselves for issues like pace etc....

[fkach]

I\'m not much of an expert on projecting future performances based on patterns. I still see both Curlin and Rags to Riches as lightly raced developing 3YOs that are capable of further improvement if they are handled properly and don\'t have any unlucky physical setbacks.  Granted, Curlin\'s -3 is a tough target for him to improve on, but I think he\'s capable of more than he showed in the Belmont given the figure he was assigned.

[flushedstraight]

In the last eight years, six Travers champs raced in the Belmont & two did not (the last two)...

out of those six winners, all six ran new TG tops in the Belmont. I am hesitant to label the Belmont a freak race and disregard the TG # earned, as they have done a great job with this race, whether it was \"easy\" or not.

At the weights, the filly\'s top is competitive with the colts, but obviously not with another clean wide run against a fresh Curlin or Bo-rail. She would have to earn it the hard way.


sidenote: recognized TGAB sitting in sec 3T at the Belmont looking like the cat that ate the canary... must have been a good day

[TGJB]

Let me deal with some of this.

1-- You guys didn\'t pay close enough attention to my original comments. I said that as it worked out, I used the time almost straight up. The adjustment I made from the basic speed chart was very small. I did not have to mark the race \"S. Pace\".

2-- Bob is right, in a situation like this (only 2 turn race of the day) you do it off the horses, and the relationships between their figures once you adjust for ground, weight, and lengths. Serious figure makers know that it is wrong to tie together one and two turn races (see \"Changing Track Speeds\"), and this is especially true at Belmont, where you sometimes have to make really big adjustments for the 1 1/4 and 1 1/2 mile races. BUT THAT WAS NOT THE CASE HERE-- see above.

3-- For all the races prior to the Belmont there was a strong 8 O\' Clock wind (imagine you are looking down at the track as a clock, with 12 being midway on the backstretch, and 6 at the finish line). This means that the wind was behind them on the turn of all one turn races, and also helped them on the backstretch of all one turn races longer than 6f. At 12f (once around) the wind is a wash.

4-- Comparisons to the Blue Grass are ridiculous. In that race they went 1:16 and change, and only had 3f after that to make up the time. Here they went faster for the 6f, and had another 6f to make up any lost time-- which they did (see 1, above). If that had not been the case, you would have seen the horses bunched more at the finish, as you did (to an extreme) at the finish of the BG.

5-- If you believe the slow pace affected the time of the race, you are saying they would have run FASTER. Get it? When we mark a race \"S. Pace\", we are giving it a FASTER figure than the raw time would warrant. You want me to make this race FASTER?

6-- The reason that RTR and HS got better figures than some might think is because of significant ground loss. Some (Miff) don\'t think it should be built into the figure, and they can adjust for it if they want. But that\'s the way we do it, and the Belmont figures are definitely right. They fit tight with the horses (try coming up with another adjustment and seeing what it does to ALL the horses), and that would be true even if the time didn\'t line up.

[fkach]

\"You guys didn\'t pay close enough attention to my original comments. I said that as it worked out, I used the time almost straight up. The adjustment I made from the basic speed chart was very small. I did not mark the race \"S. Pace\". \"

I saw your original comment and have no argument with the figure.

I believe some people are suggesting that the final time of the Belmont was not particularly fast relative to other Belmonts, but the track itself looked very fast based on some of the other final times.  

So if you didn\'t break out the Belmont in a significant way from the rest of the day, perhaps they are suggesting (without realizing it) that your basic chart is not consistent with their thinking and/or the thinking of other figure makers that did break out the race.

I hope that makes sense. It requires no response. It\'s just a way of explaining why some people seem to be on a different page in their thinking.

[miff]

Jerry,

I understand what you did and knew that ground would kinda save the fig. Never said you got it wrong, just think it\'s an ugly negative. I do not think that one should totally disregard the relationship between one and two turn races when there is only one two turn races on the day.

Is it your view that the track did not play fast on the whole, that day? Common sense tells you that the Belmont was the slowest dirt race of the day, maybe not by performance figs but certainly by variant adjusted raw time comparisons.
They went a mile in 1.40(workout time) and only had 4f to make up time not 6f as you stated.

Regarding ground, you can use this as a poster race where ground loss while crawling around the first turn did not seem as relevant as if they were \"racing\"around the first turn.RTR\'s performance seems to confirm that. Never said ground should not be included or there is a better way to handle it but imo, all ground loss may not be equal.

We can differ on views but the fact is that 2.28.3 is slow for those horses on a surface that fast and thats a racing fact.


Mike

[TGJB]

In terms of comparison with the BG, I used the 6f splits, as I have in earlier discussions, so they had 6f to make it up from there. From the mile fraction they only had to run 48 and change over the last 4f to make up the time and get to the final time that produced that figure. And again, that\'s at basically the same variant as the one turn races-- after adjusting for wind that speeded up the one turn races, and the 126 most were carrying vs. that carried in other races.

By the way, Beyer has the race as fast or faster than we do. Ragozin has not posted his yet, but after seeing what he did with the BG, Derby, and Preakness, he could come up with absolutely anything without it being a surprise.

For the rest, I can only refer you back to my post.

[Silver Charm]

Miff wrote,

\"They went a mile in 1.40(workout time) and only had 4f to make up time not 6f as you stated.\"

Miff they went 6F in 1:15 and change. They started picking up the pace from there and flew home.

Also in the Derby what did Street Sense run his opening half in? About 51? No one complained about his Derby figure and he come home for the last 6F about the same as they did in the Belmont.

And the horses in the Belmont had already run 2F further when they started picking it up.

Quit trashing the poor girl. She is nice looking and she is fast........

[miff]

\"Miff they went 6F in 1:15 and change. They started picking up the pace from there and flew home\"



Silver,

As a matter of fact they did not pick up the pace much at all until there was 4f to run.From the 6f marker to the mile marker they went another slow 24.91 quarter and from there they went 24.68 and finished in 23.83. The last 4f app 48.51,fast for the last 4f of a mile and a half race.So two thirds of the race was slow and one third was fast.


I already said I think RTR may be any kind, what bashing?


Mike

[TGAB]

Yeah, that was me in 3T. Had a good day--hit some, lost others, but a good day overall. You should\'ve stopped by and said hello.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Rags is a Terrific filly. She had enough bottom,, enough rest and enough pedigree to sprint home late as you previously stated.

Pletcher sat on the fence with her. The reason he sat on the fence is because he knows damn well he didn\'t have a Negative 2 Filly before the Belmont and he knows damn well he doesn\'t have a Negative 2 Filly after the Belmont. In that regard you can rest assured Pletcher will not set Rags against the Boys again unless he can catch a weak or vulnerable field. The one area where Pletcher does excel is finding the softest spot to place his horses. There is no argument with his acumen in that regard. The Belmont is enough evidence of that.

The people that post and read here are not novices. Everyone makes mistakes but its incredulous to try and convince long time race goers that upon infinitesimally small samples of \"marathon\" races, with an ever eroding genetic pedigree base that it is possible to make a number \"off the horses\", without reference to the speed of the other races on the day or a pace out of the glacial age. This is especially so when the \"Stand Alone\" race is run at a unique distance that the horses will only run one time in their lives. To do so strains credibility and is not reasonable. Its doubly unreasonable when the field is either unproven or hard raced.  

Report is that Andy Beyer scored the Belmont a 98 initially and then modified it to a 107. Its clear he made a mistake. The issue for handicappers to determine is the chronology of that mistake. I have a very strong opinion upon that, still I\'m currently voting Rags for Champion 3YO Colt! even if she only ran a Tgraph 3, to perhaps 2 in the Belmont. I\'m sticking with 3.

CtC


miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> \"Miff they went 6F in 1:15 and change. They
> started picking up the pace from there and flew
> home\"
>
>
>
> Silver,
>
> As a matter of fact they did not pick up the pace
> much at all until there was 4f to run.From the 6f
> marker to the mile marker they went another slow
> 24.91 quarter and from there they went 24.68 and
> finished in 23.83. The last 4f app 48.51,fast for
> the last 4f of a mile and a half race.So two
> thirds of the race was slow and one third was
> fast.
>
>
> I already said I think RTR may be any kind, what
> bashing?
>
>
> Mike

[marcus]

fkach - well your expansive knowledge of horseflesh and racing IMO gives you expert status on sheet reading . Horses don\'t run these numbers out of the blue - as I\'ve been learning .  One must keep an open mind on things and weigh all factors when handicapping  .  Curlin vs Rags to Riches certainly would be an interesting rematch to watch . Perhaps many of this years springtime superstars , without the greatest numbers or patterns at present will indeed make comeback\'s and put in good showings later in the season due to proper handling etc as your were saying ...

[spa]

Chuckles, you\'re truly demented..........