Why JV wasn't aboard Dunkirk

[BitPlayer]

I\'m guessing this is not an easy figure to make.  It\'s the only two-turn dirt race on the card (with turf races on both sides) and tough to do off the horses.  Based on my very rough estimates of ground loss, if you give Dunkirk a \"0\", then the 2d through 4th place finishers all moved forward 2 to 4 points and the rest ran at least 3 points off their tops.

[miff]

Bit,

Rags is notorious for ground loaded figs, like this one. If confirmed @ \"O\" then Dunkirk has already ran faster than Secretariat\'s derby. BRILLIANT!

Mike

[covelj70]

All of this assumes that Jerry gives the race the same kind of number but if he does, how does this horse not bounce in a big way in his next race and if he doesn\'t, then he would have put in the same kind of back to back monster efforts that set Brownie back in the Preakness and the Belmont.

This horse looks freaky but I don\'t see it setting up for him to get to let alone win the Derby.

I know no owner would ever do this but they would be best served putting this guy on the shelf for 3 months and bringing him back for the Travers/Breeders Cup.  Once a young horse puts in a huge effort like that, he needs alot more time than what he will get if he stays on the Derby trail,

This could be another in a long line of horses that run too big too soon and it usually winds up costing them.

It\'s ashame because I would love to see him be great, would be awesome for the game, but I don\'t see it happening given how over the top he just ran.

[bobphilo]

Mike,

Just to clarify what you mean by \"ground loaded figs\". The amount of ground lost by every extra path traveled is precisely given by the formula for the circumference of a circle as determined by the radius, C = Pi R(squared) - the same formula Jerry uses. Actually it\'s C = 1/2 Pi R(squared) for 1 turn, a semi-circle. The only way to get that wrong is to screw up the value of a beaten length for a given distance.
That would mean that Rag\'s figures are suspect for all but the winner, whether there is any ground loss or not. I\'m not saying that would be impossible but is the inevitable logical conclusion of saying that any figures are ground loaded.  

Bob

[bobphilo]

I wouldn\'t be so sure that Dunkirk has to bounce or is even a strong bounce candidate in his next race. The horses that are most likely to bounce are those that hugely improve over their usual or likely performance level in an \"over their head\" performance. This is most commonly seen in older horses that have had time to establish a usual performance level. In Dunkirk\'s case his debut effort can hardly be called an established performance level and whatever figure he earned in his allowance win is much more likely to represent his actual ability level. In short, we really can\'t know his allowance win was an over his head performance likely to result in a bounce next time out. Plus, we all know that depending on the competition, a horse can bounce and still win

Of course, that does not make him a good bet. If his figure is really huge, we don\'t know whether he is capable of repeating it and while that is a far cry from a \"sure bounce\" is a question to consider, especially if he goes off at very short odds.

Bob

[miff]

Bob,

No problem with the formula but it\'s only accurate on days when every path is precisely equal in firmness.When outside paths are \"superior\" to inside paths, the formula becomes flawed. Superior outside paths more than mitigate ground loss and I argue there can be benefit to the ground loser depending on the severity in the difference between the firmness of each path.Better put, a horse travelling extra distance in a far superior path benefits over the ground saver. I\'m sure that someone with scientific knowledge could measure/test paths and prove what I am saying on certain days.It is impossible that every path at every track is equal every day, yet TG and Rags make that assumption.

It has always been my opinion that certain wide/ground loss trips in \"better paths/footing\" should receive an addition or a neutral to the figure instead of a subtraction.Over 15 years ago,Gryder,Mig and Luzzi told me about warming up horses pre race and \"path-finding\"(looking for the best part of the track)I wonder how many horses that have raced in far superior wide/outside paths have far better figs than they should.

Mike

[Silver Charm]

Miff,

You think Gomex was \"path-finding\"(looking for the best part of the track) about 8 wide on the first turn and that is why he landed out there.

How does Beyer give Dunkirk a 78 where he had little ground loss then a 98 where he had a TON.

[miff]

Silver,

When a rider is forced/hung to a spot,it makes no difference. If I haven\'t seen jocks steer off the inside to the 3-4-5 path a couple of thousand times, I haven\'t seen it once.

The prior race, 78 Beyer, equals app a TG 10,both agree.The race went in a pedestrian 1.25 for 7f after a fast 45 change half.The next race went pretty fast on the day and was the only two turner. As you know, Beyer does not use ground in his formula so it does not matter how much ground Dunkirk lost in that formula.

If Rags is confirmed at \"0\" and TG agrees at -3 1/2, I suggest you use that sheet for wallpaper.


Mike

[bobphilo]

Mike,

I understand that certain paths can be better than others on different days but this is a different variable in addition to that of ground loss. I\'m certainly not saying that one should discount the possibility of a dead or golden rail and/or an outside bias. As you say, these may also someday be quantifiable, but for now are not and are matters of individual interpretation. On the other hand a given amount of ground loss from an outside path always results in a precise measurable amount of extra distance. It is not a good idea to ignore this indisputable precise differences in calculating speed figures because some paths seem to be an immeasurable amount better than others.

It does not follow that those giving due credit for extra ground covered do not give consideration that there may have been other factors mitigating these figures in their final analysis. That is like saying that Beyer believes that all horses cover the same ground regardless of wide trips because he does not include it in his speed figures.

Speed figures are best based strictly on the things that can be precisely measured and quantified and later considering the intangibles that cannot in later interpreting these figures. In assigning a numerical value to a horses performance (a speed figure) one has to restrict oneself to what is numerically quantifiable such as time, actual distance covered and weight carried. All other trip factors should be considered later. When we are able to calculate the precise effect of paths apart from ground loss quantitatively,  then they should be included in speed figures. Until then they remain qualitative trip factors, such as checked or off poorly, to interpret the speed figures.

Bob

[bobphilo]

miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If Rags is confirmed at \"0\" and TG agrees at -3
> 1/2, I suggest you use that sheet for wallpaper.
>
>
> Mike

LOL, Mike. I would add that anyone naively betting a horse strictly off a big figure use that sheet as toilet paper.

Bob

[Easy Goer]

Bob writes:

...the formula for the circumference of a circle as determined by the radius, C = Pi R(squared) - the same formula Jerry uses...
I hope TG doesn\'t use the formula for the area of a circle!

C_semicircle= Pi R

[covelj70]

I very much disagree that we need to see what this horses level is before we can predict a bounce.  A young 3 year old is going to react to numbers like this, whether its the next race or the race after that. Young horses react to figures like this, period.  

We all went through this argument on this board in excess around Big Brown\'s efforts in the Fla and Kentucky Derby last year.  He ran ridiculous figures in both races and bounced hard in the Preakness before completely falling apart in the Belmont.  

Whether Dunkirk bounces in the Fla Derby or the Kentucky Derby, he will bounce in one of those two races.  That\'s just the way it is with these young horses.  He would need several months off from the effort he just put in to avoid the inevitable damage that a race like that did.  Once he runs back two quickly from that huge effort, the damage is done.

[bobphilo]

Easy Goer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bob writes:
>
> ...the formula for the circumference of a circle
> as determined by the radius, C = Pi R(squared) -
> the same formula Jerry uses...
> I hope TG doesn\'t use the formula for the area of
> a circle!
>
> Csemicircle= Pi R

Wikipedia gives C = PiR(squared). If they have it wrong, I apologize but even if the correct formula is C semicircle = PR, it still yields a precise quantifiable number and has no effect on the rest of the post.

[bobphilo]

You said is that there there is no way that Dunkirk cannot bounce in his next race - The Fla Derby. Big Brown ran a big figure in the Fla Derby and not only did he not bounce in his next race, the Ky Derby, he ran a new top. He reacted in the Preakness but still won again.

Even if I dogmatically bought bounce theory as gospel, by your own reasoning Dunkirk should run even bigger in the Fla Derby and not bounce.

Whether or not young horses eventually react to big efforts is no sure-fire guarantee, as you are stating, that he will crash in his next race. The results of a horses efforts are questions of probabilities, like everything else in racing, not certainties. If you can show me that the p value of any horse running a big race, regardless of circumstances, bouncing big time after a big effort to be 1, I\'d love to see your findings.

Bob

[miff]

\"It is not a good idea to ignore this indisputable precise differences in calculating speed figures because some paths seem to be an immeasurable amount better than others\"

Bob, I agree, nor is a good idea to ignore the path bias when it\'s there and to not \"adjust\" the figure.It\'s a kinda art anyway, why not use the same creative license they(fig makers) use on occasion?

In case you are not aware there is absolute measurable science on how much a surface returns energy on different paths.It\'s not applied to horse racing but it\'s out there.

Mike