Jim,
Out of respect I waited a day on this to respond. (was hoping somebody else would comment instead).
I can see why you would make this point. So it is a hard debate for you/I to have. It is almost like a religious debate. Who is right about religion?
You are looking at the TG figure WAY MORE definitively than I am, although we both use the product. There is no way on God\'s green earth that I could conceive of declaring Smarty Jones\' facile Derby win an \"off race\" and therefore tie it into this argument.
To begin with, it was \"in line\" from a performance perspective with both his Rebel and Arkansas Derby, so I would consider it at or near his top. But, even if I did concede it was an \"off\" race, considering they ran in a 20 horse field, in 4 inches of rain, declaring the distance as the factor that kept him from running his best figure would WAY TOO FAR a leap for me. It wasn\'t the soup he ran in?
The bigger reason we would disagree is why I consider his Rebel \"in line\" as opposed to such a top. He got \"phony wide\" ground loss factored into that figure. Yes, the geometry was correct, but it was one of those comfortable, off the cheap speed, in an outer path, waiting to pounce, trips.
There was a guy on this board years back, perhaps ClassHandicapper, but maybe not, that used to talk about the need for \"performance figures\" as opposed to \"speed figures\". By all counts, all of us on this board know this is a multi-dimensional game, with so many layers to it, such a hard puzzle to figure out. Any attempt to \"limit\" the dimensions and simplify the puzzle is wrong, IMO. At the simplest level, a BEYER figure is sort of a one dimensional assessment of a performance. I don\'t understate the math involved and the variables, but it is missing some aspects. Hence, the creation of Thorograph figures and its competitors. they felt that ground loss and weight carried were too big of a miss in the puzzle and TGJB and others took the Beyer work to the next level. And we all on this board, appreciate that and use the figures. But guess what, it isn\'t just about geometry as ground loss isn\'t the \"end all\" to what is missing. It really is a physics problem in my mind, that includes some geometry. it is about energy spent by the horse. Each horse has only so much of it, and \"yes\" ground loss spends some of that energy, hence it affects the figure. But energy spent can just as if not more affected by running against a strong bias. Running on the lead on a dead speed track will destroy a performance, regardless of ground loss. Or trying to make up ground on a track where speed carries takes up energy and affects performance.
so, when I say \"phony ground loss\", TGJB has sometimes replied with cracks about geometry rules or Euclid and it isn\'t that I am disagreeing with his math, but when a horse is sitting off a nice target, in the 2 path, unencumbered, and comfortable, there are few better trips in racing, and the \"ground loss\" in a figure like that, is \"phony\", to a degree. Whereas a horse that is trying to accelerate on the far turn, getting spun into the 4 path, is using a ton of energy to do that and that ground loss can even be more of an impact to his performance than the geometry involved.
I guess the bottom line is that while us sheet players scoff to a degree at people that think Beyer figures are the \"end all\" to a performance assessment, I think u are missing it almost as badly when u look at the TG through one lens, without assessing the other factors. Jim, I could almost envision the kool aid dripping onto your shirt, as you typed this post about Smarty Jones\' \"off race\" in the DErby...
Good luck,
Jim
