First off, if you think I\'m contesting the assigned figure to stir the pot you\'re mistaken.
Secondly your \"Carson City Derby\" with 10 entrants trying two turns and 10 poles for the first time in their lives is very much what was referred to conceptually. Running with Career tops of 2 at six poles would not result in any of the ten running a Zed at 10 furlongs. The Carson City Derby winner would score out at about a 6. If you ran 100 Carson City\'s and included a few that had scored faster races than 2\'s you might get a couple to run a 2 at 10 furlongs. But, if you ran them on three races in five weeks you wouldn\'t even get that 2 and you\'d break down half the Carson City\'s trying to.
Lastly, like Andy Beyer\'s credibility and Rags Negative Number, Carson City is gone now. She ran a slow Belmont.
BitPlayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TGJB -
>
> I assume the \"3\" is just Chuckles being Chuckles,
> but his and other posts do raise a question I am
> curious about.
>
> Several posts in recent weeks have questioned figs
> earned at classic distances based, at least in
> part, on the premise that since a particular horse
> (or the horse population in general) is not bred
> to go long, their TG figs should decline, or at
> least not improve, as they stretch out to 10
> furlongs or further.
>
> To me, the fallacy in that argument is that TG is
> based on a relative, not an absolute, scale.
> Since you are doing numbers based on the horses,
> what matters is how well a horse stretches out
> relative to its peers (who are also
> distance-challenged) not relative to some absolute
> standard (such as a long-standing par time).
>
> For example, suppose that on one if its gimmick
> days, Calder were to run the \"Carson City Stakes\"
> for offspring of Carson City (is he still alive?)
> or some other brilliant sprint sire, with
> eligibility being conditioned on having a TG top
> of between 1 and 2 and never having raced at a
> mile or more. Suppose further that the race was
> run at 10 furlongs on the dirt and that it was the
> only dirt race on the card. Presumably, in order
> to give most of the entrants figures that are
> consistent with their prior tops, you would give
> the winner a new top. Chuckles would then
> complain that a son (or daughter) of Carson City
> was unlikely to have run a new top at 10 furlongs,
> but you would have been faithful to your
> methodology and TG users would understand how you
> got to the number.
>
> What I am curious about is your reference to your
> Belmont figs being consistent with your \"speed
> chart.\" You have in the past referred to
> regularly checking your figures at various tracks
> to make sure you keep one- and two-turn races in
> alignment. I assume your efforts are reflected in
> your speed charts. If the breed is becoming more
> distance-challenged, presumably you should have
> seen that reflected in the relationship between
> one- and two-turn races captured in your speed
> charts, particularly at the tracks with larger
> circumferences (Belmont being an extreme example;
> Saratoga being perhaps a better one).
>
> All of this leads to two questions. First, have
> you seen such a trend? Second, given the small
> number of races run at two turns at Belmont, how
> reliable do you think the chart is in that case?
>
> Thanks for your time.
>
> P.S. Your spell-checker objects to \"TG\".
