performance that could be better

[msola1]

Jerry,

This may have come up (maybe even a number of times) and I missed it.

Do you allow the possibility that a horse, in winning, may not be exerting himself fully and may have run a lower number? And if so, what do we do about it?

Thanks,

Mike

[TGJB]

In general I don\'t think they have anything in reserve, but we use \"h?\" for those times where the trackman indicates they might not have been fully extended. But as Ragozin said to me back when I was just starting to shave, even if we assume they could have run faster this time, doesn\'t mean they get to use it next time.

[SoCalMan2]

I think that this question is interesting and has a lot of different angles to it.  

First, I think it is clear the situation needs to be handled the way the sheetmakers handle it ... i.e. give the horse its number and also make a designation about the easy nature of it.  I do not think it is right to give the horse a few extra points just because it could have run faster.  Aside from the fact that we do not know that it is true whether the horse could have run faster, the truth is that it did not run any faster than it ran and the sheets need to reflect what the horse ran.  This is no different than when a horse gets a whole lot of trouble (bad starts, checks, altered courses, etc) and you know it could have run faster.  We still do not want the figure to be adjusted from what the horse actually ran.

Second, in terms of what an \"h?\" means for the next race, I think if the horse is likely to bounce off the effort, it is not relevant whether he could have run faster or not to the question of whether or not he will bounce.  Reasonable minds may differ on this of course.  I think that Ragozin told Jerry covers this.

Third, if the \"h?\" actually reflects a bad number for a horse, then I am more inclined to be forgiving of an off number if it is an \"h?\"  (You might say how is this possible, but imagine that Curlin makes his next start in an allowance race for horses that have not won a race since October 28, 2007.  If he wins by 10 with an \"h?\" but it is his worst figure ever, I am not going to be holding that figure against him.  (I think Costa Rising finds himself in this scenario sometimes)).

To me the most important scenario in dealing with an \"h?\" is what happens if the figure was a horse\'s lifetime top at the time and he is now coming back to a new top?  In this scenario, you may want to have more flexibility in deteriming where a horse\'s \"ceiling\" is.

I am sure there are a ton of angles on the \"h?\" I am missing here, but these are just a few the come to mind.  

Also, to me this question is VERY different from the question that people who are uncomfortable with numbers often ask.  For example, to me, a \"6\" is a \"6\" regardless of whether it was earned on the front end with an easy pace and a good size winning margin or whether it was earned going 5 wide in a hotly contested race with a nose margin at the finish.  To me, a \"6\" is a \"6\" is a \"6\" and I do not care how it was earned. However, a \"6h?\" is something different (as is a 6 with any sort of designation).

[miff]

JB,

True about the next time on energy saved but would you rather have one coming back off an h (held) or one that finished on it\'s hands and knees.It\'s might be better going forward to have one off an \"H\" race rather than a collapse on the wire. As to how it affects future performance it may take a few races to know.

So Cal,

I read the 6 is 6 is 6 very differently.The example you illustrate of the loose lead slow paced runner is a good example. If that same runner can run the 6 in a faster more honest pace then I believe a 6 is a 6. When they need their  personal optimum conditions to run their figs (e.g. slow pace, perfect trip, bias aided etc), I tend to read those figs differently.

Mike

[msola1]

SoCalMan2,

I\'m glad you responded to this question, because I am always happy to have your opinion. But also because you put your finger on the point I wasn\'t able to make so well.

My real question is, for a horse whose ceiling we don\'t yet know (think 2yo or young 3yo, for example), how do we deal with it? Of course, if the horse is \"under wraps,\" and wins by 10, we may be inclined to think he will be able to reach yet faster numbers, but will he?

Obviously if the horse\'s top was a 10 and his suspicious number is a 3, then we could expect a bounce. But if it is an 8? or a 6? Can we anticipate there is more to come?

Mike

[NoCarolinaTony]

I don\'t think a 6 earnerd at 5 or 5.5 dirt or turf equal a 5 at 6 or 7 furlongs..it has to be proven. Thats just me.

Same goes from 1 at 6 F never eqauls a 1 at 8 9 or 10 F. Again it has to be proven to me.

NC Tony

[SoCalMan2]

MSola1,

Thank you for the nice words.  In answer to your question, I wish I could give you something concise.  Unfortunately, all I can really say is that I understand the difficulty in assessing such a situation and that, when faced with such a matter, I may well take into consideration the totality of the horse\'s sheet before deciding which way to read that critical \"h?\" race.  In some cases, it might go one way and in others another.

NCT,
As to whether a number is a number regardless of the distance or surface, I do of course take note of horse\'s proclivities and do not automatically expect a number received on one surface, configuration, and distance to be achievable under a combination of surface, configuration, and distance.  No question that a horse than can run a 6 at one distance may have trouble doing it at another distance (and same with surface switched and same with configuration differences).

Miff,

As to how a particular number is earned, I do recognize that this is a long time question on whcih reasonable minds can differ.  Also, I may have been a little too strident.  There are occasions where I will shade a figure for how it was earned, but those are fairly rare.

I am curious to hear Mr. Brown\'s thoughts on the Miff point.

Thanks to all,

SCM2