Weekend Beyers: Blind Luck 104; Sidney's 100; AmLion 98

[Kasept]

AQU-Wood Memorial S (G1): Eskendereya 109 (T. Pletcher/J. Velazquez)
AQU-Carter H (G1): Warrior's Reward 103 (I. Wilkes/J. Leparoux)
AQU-Bay Shore S (G3): Eightyfiveinafifty 100 (G. Contessa/R. Dominguez)
AQU-Excelsior S (G3): Goldsville 96 (M. Hushion/R. Dominguez)

SA-Santa Anita Derby (G1): Sidney's Candy 100 (J. Sadler/J. Talamo)
SA-Potrero Grande H (G2): Ventana 92 (B. Baffert/G. Gomez)
SA-Arcadia H (G2): Compari 95 (M. Jones/G. Gomez)
SA-Providencia S (G2): City to City 86 (J. Hollendorfer/J. Rosario)
SA-Las Flores H (G3): Mona de Momma (J. Sadler/J. Rosario)

HAW-Illinois Derby (G3): American Lion 98 (E. Harty/D. Flores)
HAW-Cryptoclearance: Shadowbdancing 92 (T. Gore/E. Razo)

OP-Oaklawn H (G2): Duke of Mischief 107 (D. Fawkes/E. Coa)
OP-Fantasy S (G2): Blind Luck 104 (J. Hollendorfer/R. Bejarano)

KEE-Central Bank Ashland S (G1): Evening Jewel 88 (J. Cassidy/K. Desormeaux)
KEE-Transylvania S (G3): Nordic Truce 90 (C. Clement/J. Leparoux)

GP-Skip Away S (G3): Arson Squad 101 (R. Dutrow/P. Lopez)
GP-Harmony Lodge H: Cassidys Pride 96 (M. Estevez/J. Lezcano)

WO-Debut S: Grazettes Landing 92 (M. Casse/P. Husbands)

TAM-OBS Sophomore S: Thank U Philippe 90 (M. Wolfson/E. Trujillo)
TAM-L and D Farm Turf Distaff S: Closeout 91 (T. Proctor/J. Castanon)
TAM-Hilton Garden Inn Sprint S: Tommy's Memory 90 (A. Ryan/D. Amiss)
TAM Stonehedge Farm S. Soph Fillies S: Dances With Ashley 81 (M. Wolfson/E. Trujillo)
TAM-Kinsman Turf Classic S: Picou 98 (C. Brown/E. Trujillo)
TAM-Sophomore Turf S: Thunder Brew 86 (A. Pecoraro/V. Lebron)

LRL-Primonetta S: All Giving 87 (F. Stites/H. Karamanos)

[tector]

So the Ashland graded out as horrible as it looked visually.

Blind Luck might be able to pull a Rachael on April 30.

[the_fat_man]

I'm as big a fan of Blink Luck as there is. And there's no denying that she's better than Evening Jewel (even though she was all out to beat that one last they met). But 16 Beyer points better? Now, there's a system that makes sense.:rolleyes:

Question: what did these two run in terms of Beyer # last time they met?

[Kasept]

I'm as big a fan of Blink Luck as there is. And there's no denying that she's better than Evening Jewel (even though she was all out to beat that one last they met). But 16 Beyer points better? Now, there's a system that makes sense.:rolleyes:

Question: what did these two run in terms of Beyer # last time they met?
88's.

The Fantasy number appears to have been very easy to make.

Using Tidal Pool's 101 last out as the stick, Blind Luck's 2.5+ advantage is +4 points so a 104-105 makes perfect sense.

6.5 lengths from Tidal Pool back to No Such Word (92 in the Honeybee last) = 11 points, so the margins back up the last race and the current.

Is the difference in Blind Luck Friday at OP versus Blind Luck at DMR, SA and HOL all that tough to figure? There was a slight surface switch involved..

[the_fat_man]

So, she got that ridiculous setup last out and comes back to run what I'm assuming to be a significant new top, running the same type of race?

[tector]

Umm...Oaklawn has dirt. IWR, etc.

[the_fat_man]

Oh. I get it. Horses are FASTER on dirt. :rolleyes:

[tector]

Oh. I get it. Horses are FASTER on dirt. :rolleyes:

Every time I think you can't possibly be as stupid as you seem, you prove me wrong.

I'll never doubt you again.

[the_fat_man]

Every time I think you can't possibly be as stupid as you seem, you prove me wrong.

I'll never doubt you again.

What are you RETARDED?

Or have you simply accepted the BEYER BS as gospel? In your case, the former would be the better option.

[Kasept]

Oh. I get it. Horses are FASTER on dirt. :rolleyes:
Certain individual horses are faster on dirt.. yes. Just as certain individual horses are faster on turf... or even possibly on the third surface. Their individual physical properties can and will make them 'faster' on different surfaces.

Your obstinacy and myopia on this particular topic is hard to understand.

[the_fat_man]

88's.

The Fantasy number appears to have been very easy to make.

Using Tidal Pool's 101 last out as the stick, Blind Luck's 2.5+ advantage is +4 points so a 104-105 makes perfect sense.

6.5 lengths from Tidal Pool back to No Such Word (92 in the Honeybee last) = 11 points, so the margins back up the last race and the current.

Is the difference in Blind Luck Friday at OP versus Blind Luck at DMR, SA and HOL all that tough to figure? There was a slight surface switch involved..

Then, the 'reasonable' conclusion is that Blind Luck is 15 or so points FASTER on dirt than she is on POLY. Even though, once again, she ran the same type of race. Maybe it has something to do with BEYERS on POLY being USELESS. Think that might come into play at all?

[tector]

OK, all horses are equally adept on all surfaces. Whatever you say.

Sorry: "Adept" = "good" (sort of). Didn't mean to use a word obviously beyond your grasp.

[the_fat_man]

Certain individual horses are faster on dirt.. yes. Just as certain individual horses are faster on turf... or even possibly on the third surface. Their individual physical properties can and will make them 'faster' on different surfaces.

Your obstinacy and myopia on this particular topic is hard to understand.

Steve

This horse ALWAYS runs the same type of race. She's just GOOD. And, the more of these SLOW poly horses that run higher figures on the dirt, the harder it will be to HIDE the inadequacy of Beyers on synthetics. I mean, even CJ is on record that the Beyers in CALI absolutely suck.

[justindew]

Certain individual horses are faster on dirt.. yes. Just as certain individual horses are faster on turf... or even possibly on the third surface. Their individual physical properties can and will make them 'faster' on different surfaces.

Your obstinacy and myopia on this particular topic is hard to understand.

At the end of the day, this is an underused and fantastic word.

[Kasept]

Steve

This horse ALWAY runs the same type of race. She's just GOOD. And, the more of these SLOW poly horses that run higher figures on the dirt, the harder it will be to HIDE the inadequacy of Beyers on synthetics.

OK... Understand that point. The inadequacies argument is a different discussion. I can guarantee that Andy Beyer, Mark Hopkins and Randy Moss and everyone involved in Beyer Associates is evaluating and re-examining their formulations constantly to try and get the equation as accurate as possible for the non-organic surfaces. As Beyer himself said when he came on ATR to announce and explain the fig adjustment last January, there is nothing more important to him than providing the most valuable and accurate figures they can to us, the wagering public.

In this case with Blind Luck, you just really see the quantum difference in dirt racing and synthetic racing and how the synthetic oval mutes raw speed. Blind Luck has done fine out west because her style particularly suits the surface and how races on synthetic have come to be run.. Zenyatta is another that fits the surface/style scenario. That isn't to say that Blind Luck still couldn't be bested by dawdling pace as she was in the SA Oaks and almost was in the Las Virgenes.

[the_fat_man]

In this case with Blind Luck, you just really see the quantum difference in dirt racing and synthetic racing and how the synthetic oval mutes raw speed. Blind Luck has done fine out west because her style particularly suits the surface and how races on synthetic have come to be run.. Zenyatta is another that fits the surface/style scenario. That isn't to say that Blind Luck still couldn't be bested by dawdling pace as she was in the SA Oaks and almost was in the Las Virgenes.

She wins the Oaks if she's not blocked the length of the stretch -- which would've been a ridiculously huge accomplishment. Combined with the Las Virgenes, where Evening Jewel was 'supposed' to win, one gets a sense of how good this filly is. Then, she comes off the surface that supposedly 'favors' her running style and runs what appears to be an identical type of race (haven't done the charts for this yet.).

All I want is some consistency. I want the Beyers to be able to show that this is a good horse, whether on synthetics or dirt --- as she now has proven. Clearly, there are horses that are better on one surface over another but is this really the case here? Did this filly suddenly get good by running a respectable number or was she always good? (note: I don't know what she's run in the past and have made the assumption that her peak was around 90).

[10 pnt move up]

If the numbers are not comparable to each other, something I completely agree with, then why were they being throw around last year in Eclipse discussions? If they are that important then they should be on the same scale.

I highly doubt that Ventana, what looks like the west coasts best sprinter, is 15 points behind the best sprinters out east.

[blackthroatedwind]

Oh yeah, speed figures are often used in Eclipse decisions.

You used to be much smarter. Have you been eating peyote?

[10 pnt move up]

Oh yeah, speed figures are often used in Eclipse decisions.

You used to be much smarter. Have you been eating peyote?

Are you high, even Beyer used it as an argument last year if memory serves.

[blackthroatedwind]

Are you high, even Beyer used it as an argument last year if memory serves.

Obviously Beyer looks at them....but what percentage of voters do...and even if they do how much would it possibly affect the outcomes?

[10 pnt move up]

Obviously Beyer looks at them....but what percentage of voters do...and even if they do how much would it possibly affect the outcomes?

I think Crist used them as well in his arguments...so yea some people do, and my point was if the best in the business do to influence the public with their reasoning than they should be at least somewhat accurate.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

The 98 Beyer for American Lion in the ILLI Derby is obviously too low.

If you believe the 98 .....

* 2nd place finisher Yawanna Twist regressed a couple points. 2nd time router with a nice trip and being bet hard for Dutrow.

* 3rd place finisher Backtalk went backwards 12 points off his last number

* 4th place finisher Turf Melody went backwards 16 points off of his last number

* 5th place finisher Dave in Dixie went backwards 12 points off of his last number and 23 points off of his two back number.

* 6th place finisher Boulder Creek went backwards 10 points.

* 7th place finisher Stephen's Got Hope went backwards 25 points.

* 8th place finisher Game Ball went backwards 18 points.

The track at Hawthorne was incredible slow ... I wonder if they cut this race loose to get it where they could make it as slow as they did .. or if they just had virtually every single horse running below form all day long?

[blackthroatedwind]

The 98 Beyer for American Lion in the ILLI Derby is obviously too low.

If you believe the 98 .....

* 2nd place finisher Yawanna Twist regressed a couple points. 2nd time router with a nice trip and being bet hard for Dutrow.

* 3rd place finisher Backtalk went backwards 12 points off his last number

* 4th place finisher Turf Melody went backwards 16 points off of his last number

* 5th place finisher Dave in Dixie went backwards 12 points off of his last number and 23 points off of his two back number.

* 6th place finisher Boulder Creek went backwards 10 points.

* 7th place finisher Stephen's Got Hope went backwards 25 points.

* 8th place finisher Game Ball went backwards 18 points.

The track at Hawthorne was incredible slow ... I wonder if they cut this race loose .. or if they just had virtually every single horse running below form all day long?

Of course Yawanna Twist and Turf Melody ran worse considering the trips/set-ups they had last time. Yawana Twist has had unbelievably good trips in all his races. This trip was, believe it or not, his toughest. How were Turf Melody's numbers before the Gotham?

Backtalk figures to run worse going longer.

Dave in Dixie? That's funny.

The race was dominated on the front end which makes it harder for the closers to have run to their figures. However, those are some big changes. But, it wasn't much of a field.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

What about all of the other route races that day?

[blackthroatedwind]

What about all of the other route races that day?

What about them?

And why should I care?

[blackthroatedwind]

I guess you shouldn't. Obviously the days other 6 route races mean nothing at all.

The key to everything is simply knowing that the heavily raced Yawanna Twist has had easy trips throughout his long career.






Do you honestly think either of the first two finishers rate to run figures in the 90s going long in the future?

How about Backtalk? You figure he will run a lot of figs in the mid 80s going 1 1/8 down the road? If he runs in the Derby he makes last very tough to achieve for the others. Hell, he's slow going his best distances.

[blackthroatedwind]

Oh, wait, I got it. You're just pissed that the figure came back what it did because you wanted to post some " look at me " thread about why the figure wouldn't be predictive.

Don't worry.....you had a decent backup plan.

[blackthroatedwind]

But don't worry about it....you can always go to escoteric and post something about one of your brother's ex-girlfriends and a sock.

Or, better yet, say something about " why all the hating on DrugS. "

[philcski]

She wins the Oaks if she's not blocked the length of the stretch -- which would've been a ridiculously huge accomplishment. Combined with the Las Virgenes, where Evening Jewel was 'supposed' to win, one gets a sense of how good this filly is. Then, she comes off the surface that supposedly 'favors' her running style and runs what appears to be an identical type of race (haven't done the charts for this yet.).

All I want is some consistency. I want the Beyers to be able to show that this is a good horse, whether on synthetics or dirt --- as she now has proven. Clearly, there are horses that are better on one surface over another but is this really the case here? Did this filly suddenly get good by running a respectable number or was she always good? (note: I don't know what she's run in the past and have made the assumption that her peak was around 90).

16 Beyer points at 8.5F is 1.6 seconds, or about 9 lengths. If the trouble she had in the Oaks was worth 3-4 lengths, and moving to dirt was worth 5-6 lengths (certainly reasonable assumptions, no?) the number makes a lot of sense.

She is absolutely a good horse, and the one to beat on April 30th. Synthetics make her "not as good" a horse as she is on dirt like it does to a lot of horses. Others have about equal ability on both surfaces. A third group move way up on synthetics. The same phenomenon occurs on turf- plenty of turfers can't run a lick on dirt, and excellent dirt horses just look like they're running in place over turf. It's been proven time and again over the last 4 years that synthetics are NOT a replacement for dirt, but rather a 3rd surface, and must be treated as such in both handicapping through speed figures or visual/trip/charting assessments.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

I have 4 brothers and I can't even name a single ex gf of theirs.

[blackthroatedwind]

I have 4 brothers and I can't even name a single ex gf of theirs.

I didn't realize names were necessary.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Only you and The Fat Man can make an 8 point difference of opinion with a speed figure into something personal.

[blackthroatedwind]

Only you and The Fat Man can make an 8 point difference of opinion with a speed figure into something personal.

Oh, wait, something new in your repertoire....whining.

Do you want a hug?

[The Indomitable DrugS]

I'd take one from Jessica Pacheco.

[philcski]

Do you honestly think either of the first two finishers rate to run figures in the 90s going long in the future?

How about Backtalk? You figure he will run a lot of figs in the mid 80s going 1 1/8 down the road? If he runs in the Derby he makes last very tough to achieve for the others. Hell, he's slow going his best distances.

Since when does what they might do in the future have any bearing on what this figure should be?

Quite frankly, the Illinois Derby figures have been indefensibly high in the past few years (several of the runners never came close to repeating their number) and it's possible they took the low end of the range when they punched the 98 because of it. Not like anyone watches any other races from Hawthorne to know if the number is good in context.

And yes- I expect Yawanna Twist to run a 90 again... When he's 2-5 in the New York Derby at FL and wins by a pole in preparation for the Albany and Empire Classic.

[the_fat_man]

Only you and The Fat Man can make an 8 point difference of opinion with a speed figure into something personal.

Thanks for the entertainment, boys.

[blackthroatedwind]

Since when does what they might do in the future have any bearing on what this figure should be?

Quite frankly, the Illinois Derby figures have been indefensibly high in the past few years (several of the runners never came close to repeating their number) and it's possible they took the low end of the range when they punched the 98 because of it. Not like anyone watches any other races from Hawthorne to know if the number is good in context.

And yes- I expect Yawanna Twist to run a 90 again... When he's 2-5 in the New York Derby at FL and wins by a pole in preparation for the Albany and Empire Classic.

It was circular logic to annoy DrugS.

By the way, you are either poorly evaluating this year's crop of NY Bred 3YOs or not really thinking it through....or both.

[blackthroatedwind]

War is inevitable.

When BTW is so up in short arms over something like an 8 point difference of opinion in a speed figure at Hawthorne .. it's his way of letting you know the Rubicon has been crossed and the loyal minion army under his full command is ready to strike on all phases of attack.

That's all you got?

I couldn't even understand it.

Now you're interupting 21 Grams.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

You mean you didn't like the 'up in short arms' crack?

[blackthroatedwind]

You mean you didn't like the 'up in short arms' crack?

It only made me pity you even more.

[philcski]

It was circular logic to annoy DrugS.

By the way, you are either poorly evaluating this year's crop of NY Bred 3YOs or not really thinking it through....or both.

More of a joke than an analysis on YT- I honestly haven't been watching the NYB 3yo's like I usually do.

I blame it on living in Kentucky- like all the rest of my problems!

[blackthroatedwind]

They're way above average.

[asudevil]

This is enjoyable schit.....

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Quite frankly, the Illinois Derby figures have been indefensibly high in the past few years (several of the runners never came close to repeating their number) and it's possible they took the low end of the range when they punched the 98 because of it. Not like anyone watches any other races from Hawthorne to know if the number is good in context.


Not the last 2.

Musket Man won last year with a 98 and was 3rd in both the Derby and Preakness with 96 and 106.

Recapturetheglory took advantage of a strong inside-speed bias and won the ILLI Derby two years ago with a 102. He only ran a 92 in the KY Derby, but broke from post 18, was wide while pressing a solid pace, only a head back after a mile and gave ground late.

Denis of Cork ran a 88 Beyer in the ILLI Derby against the bias RTG took advantage of .. he ran a 97 in the Derby and 93 in the Belmont when 3rd and 2nd.

Even if you want to go back to Cowtown Cat's bias aided win and Sweetnorthernsaint's big win .. both were repeated .. Cowtown Cat was beaten only 3.5 lengths to Street Sense at Saratoga and got a slightly better number and SNS was 2nd in the Preakness to Bernardini with an identical number two races later.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Is the difference in Blind Luck Friday at OP versus Blind Luck at DMR, SA and HOL all that tough to figure? There was a slight surface switch involved..

I think the HOL#(93) versus the OP#(104) has a ton of personal bias involved. That 93 he gave out should of made him totally useless as a figure maker for racing west of the Rockies. He just can't do it. They're both huge efforts, and not 11 points apart. He just has no credibility when synthetics are involved. I don't agree with Fathead about her Anita races (she just doesn't like Pro-ride much,) but the Hollywood race is not 11 points worse than that Fantasy effort. That's just some common Eastern Bullsht. He has zero reason to change, because his friends will bend over backwards to destroy any opposition.

[alysheba4]

Oh yeah, speed figures are often used in Eclipse decisions.

You used to be much smarter. Have you been eating peyote?....the better question is,where can one find peyote?

[cmorioles]

She wins the Oaks if she's not blocked the length of the stretch -- which would've been a ridiculously huge accomplishment. Combined with the Las Virgenes, where Evening Jewel was 'supposed' to win, one gets a sense of how good this filly is. Then, she comes off the surface that supposedly 'favors' her running style and runs what appears to be an identical type of race (haven't done the charts for this yet.).

All I want is some consistency. I want the Beyers to be able to show that this is a good horse, whether on synthetics or dirt --- as she now has proven. Clearly, there are horses that are better on one surface over another but is this really the case here? Did this filly suddenly get good by running a respectable number or was she always good? (note: I don't know what she's run in the past and have made the assumption that her peak was around 90).

I really don't want to get too deep into this because it is a very old topic. Speed figures measure final time. However, on synthetics, final time is often irrelevant. The pace is so slow, especially in routes, that horses are never going to run figures like they do on dirt.

Now, if you want Beyer figures to measure something other than final time, maybe they could be made more accurate, but it is still very hard to do. In racing, the goal isn't to run as fast as possible, it is to win the race. On dirt, these often amount to the same thing. On turf and rubber, that simply is not the case.

So again, I'm not sure what you want Beyer to do. His figures have never purported to do anything but measure final time. On rubber, final time is a very small part of determining how good a horse happens to be.

[the_fat_man]

I really don't want to get too deep into this because it is a very old topic. Speed figures measure final time. However, on synthetics, final time is often irrelevant. The pace is so slow, especially in routes, that horses are never going to run figures like they do on dirt.

Now, if you want Beyer figures to measure something other than final time, maybe they could be made more accurate, but it is still very hard to do. In racing, the goal isn't to run as fast as possible, it is to win the race. On dirt, these often amount to the same thing. On turf and rubber, that simply is not the case.

So again, I'm not sure what you want Beyer to do. His figures have never purported to do anything but measure final time. On rubber, final time is a very small part of determining how good a horse happens to be.

I think BEYERS do a disservice to those that don't have a firm grasp of the game. That's why we're constantly subjected to the same comments about horses 'improving'. I clearly realize that BEYERS don't account for pace, nor for the surface difference, and the nuances that come with it; yet, they continue to play such a huge role in the game. Comments like 'not fast enough', when the reference is to FINAL TIME, really have no part in the game of anyone who understands even the basics of racing. Beyer is stuck between a rock and a hard place. His figures are 'fine' for dirt, as pace doesn't play that much of a role (at least not the primary role it does on synthetics) but they fail woefully in cases where the 'type' of races determines how 'fast' a race is run. In other words, he CAN'T RECONCILE his DIRT with his SYNTHETIC figures. And, thus, he (and his supporters) really should not be commenting on the ability of horses that run on different surfaces. This would result in:

1) less confusing/comical situations for those who have a gauge as to the ability of a given horse

2) the Beyer camp relaxing their (equally comical) campaign against synthetic horses

This is not to say that there's a way to reconcile these numbers, however. It's just an intractable situation if only speed is involved.

[blackthroatedwind]

The agenda is yours Fat Man....not Beyer's.

It is every person's responsibility to learn and understand these things. I won't argue that " racing " hasn't done a good job over the years explaining these things to the masses, and too many people continue to lead others in the absolute wrong direction, but ultimately these concepts that CJ laid out aren't that complicated. There are two factors...one is a better job needs to be done to educate....but the bigger one is that people need to be willing to listen....really listen.

Simply falling on the misplaced Beyer hatred is specifically NOT listening.

[the_fat_man]

[QUOTE=blackthroatedwind;632714]The agenda is yours Fat Man....not Beyer's.
Simply falling on the misplaced Beyer hatred is specifically NOT listening.[QUOTE]

Exactly. It's all on me. I mean, I was bashing Beyer(s) way before Beyerites were bashing synthetics.

I have an agenda:

1) crush the BEYERITE paradigm

2) crush the Pick(3)4(6) paradigm

Come on, Bro. The game is beatable without having to steer all the neophytes in the wrong direction.

[miraja2]

Beyer is stuck between a rock and a hard place. His figures are 'fine' for dirt, as pace doesn't play that much of a role (at least not the primary role it does on synthetics) but they fail woefully in cases where the 'type' of races determines how 'fast' a race is run. In other words, he CAN'T RECONCILE his DIRT with his SYNTHETIC figures. And, thus, he (and his supporters) really should not be commenting on the ability of horses that run on different surfaces.
Can you guess who wrote the following in 1993:

"Racing in England and France, in particular is utterly foreign to an American; horses gallop along in a tight pack in virtual slow motion during the early stages of a race and don't accelerate in earnest until they turn into the stretch. As a result, their final times are unimportant, and speed figures would be useless as a handicapping tool."

The answer is.....Andrew Beyer (Beyer on Speed, p 149).
You make it sound as if by making speed figures for horses that run on synthetic or turf Beyer and other figure makers are engaged in some kind of deceitful fraud. I don't think that's the case. As the quotation above illustrates, Beyer has always been very open about what figures are, and - just as importantly - what they are not. If other people use speed figures as some sort of gospel truth when it comes to synthetic and turf horses, then that is on them, not him. As CJ pointed out, since the figures merely involve the final time, it strikes me that it is up to the individual horseplayer to determine if the final time (and therefore a speed figure) is important or not in a given race.

[cmorioles]

The track at Hawthorne was incredible slow ... I wonder if they cut this race loose to get it where they could make it as slow as they did .. or if they just had virtually every single horse running below form all day long?

The variant was not split. I'm also not sure how you think the track was "incredibly slow".

The winner of the 1st was given a lifetime top in career start 24. It was 6 points higher than any in his last 10.

The winner of the 3rd was given a 61 after recording 54, 65, 67 his last three, 54 most recent.

The winner of the 4th was given a 57 after running seven straight races between 53 and 64.

The winner of the 5th was given a 75 after running his career high, a 74, in his previous race. This was start number 17.

The winner of the 9th was given a 92 after his last 3 of 51, 82, 89. He did come off a layoff and had some nice 100+ back numbers. The runner up will get an 88, a lifetime top in career start number 19.

Again, all used the same variant, including the Illinois Derby.

[parsixfarms]

Speed figures measure final time. However, on synthetics, final time is often irrelevant. The pace is so slow, especially in routes, that horses are never going to run figures like they do on dirt.

I posted this in another thread, but the figures for the 9F races at Aqueduct on Saturday seem too high, for the reason quoted above. Given the slow pace of each, the final time of both races seemed a little slow for how the track was overall playing Saturday.

Eskendereya was very impressive, especially in comparison to the slow come home time for the Excelsior, but both of these races were contested in the manner that we often see in turf/synthetic races and typically result in final figures slower than the actual performance may warrant.

[cmorioles]

I posted this in another thread, but the figures for the 9F races at Aqueduct on Saturday seem too high, for the reason quoted above. Given the slow pace of each, the final time of both races seemed a little slow for how the track was overall playing Saturday.

Eskendereya was very impressive, especially in comparison to the slow come home time for the Excelsior, but both of these races were contested in the manner that we often see in turf/synthetic races and typically result in final figures slower than the actual performance may warrant.

I would disagree because for the Excelsior, the pace was exactly what I would have predicted for the final time. I don't think it was slow at all for that track, just average.

[parsixfarms]

I would disagree because for the Excelsior, the pace was exactly what I would have predicted for the final time. I don't think it was slow at all for that track, just average.

They were both paceless races on paper, and played that way out on the track. The Excelsior was particularly ugly through the stretch, as evidenced by what visually appeared to be Nite Light "coming again" when he was empty on the turn. To justify the Wood figure, it appears that projections were partly made off of what the Excelsior participants normally run - a tough to justify projection based on the way that race played out on the track.

There were two 7F races that were run in 1:21 and change, and NY-bred MSW horses cut a 44 and change half, so the track was not slow. The final time of the Wood was the third slowest in the past 14 years; that's largely a function of the early pace. Still, it gets a higher figure than either the Carter or Bay Shore, which were run in pretty representative time. Maybe, we'll have to agree to disagree but I don't think the figures for the two-turn races make sense.

[the_fat_man]

I would disagree because for the Excelsior, the pace was exactly what I would have predicted for the final time. I don't think it was slow at all for that track, just average.

The Excelsior was one FUNKY race. This was the, at least, 3rd time on Saturday that a horse made a late run on the inside to get 2nd, when it appeared hopelessly beaten earlier, and the outside horse appeared to be running on quick sand.

[cmorioles]

They were both paceless races on paper, and played that way out on the track. The Excelsior was particularly ugly through the stretch, as evidenced by what visually appeared to be Nite Light "coming again" when he was empty on the turn. To justify the Wood figure, it appears that projections were partly made off of what the Excelsior participants normally run - a tough to justify projection based on the way that race played out on the track.

There were two 7F races that were run in 1:21 and change, and NY-bred MSW horses cut a 44 and change half, so the track was not slow. The final time of the Wood was the third slowest in the past 14 years; that's largely a function of the early pace. Still, it gets a higher figure than either the Carter or Bay Shore, which were run in pretty representative time. Maybe, we'll have to agree to disagree but I don't think the figures for the two-turn races make sense.

Fair enough, but one thing I know is that both 9f routes, in relation to final time, were not paceless. The Wood was mildly slow on raw figures, and the older horses were exactly dead on.

On raw times, the Excelsior had a raw pace figure (Beyer Scale) of 92 and a raw speed figure of 92. The Wood had a raw pace figure of 95 and a speed figure of 105. I'm using the 6f time for the pace calls.

[philcski]

Fair enough, but one thing I know is that both 9f routes, in relation to final time, were not paceless. The Wood was mildly slow on raw figures, and the older horses were exactly dead on.

On raw times, the Excelsior had a raw pace figure (Beyer Scale) of 92 and a raw speed figure of 92. The Wood had a raw pace figure of 95 and a speed figure of 105. I'm using the 6f time for the pace calls.

I think part of it is people don't realize that the Aqueduct 6F timer at 9F is a little late and when 1:13 comes up on the screen it "feels" slow, especially compared to the 1-turn 9F at Belmont.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

The winner of the 3rd was given a 61 after recording 54, 65, 67 his last three, 54 most recent.

Yeah - and a 74, 70, and 74 in his 3 starts before that.

So, in victory, he was lengths slower than in five of his last 6 races. The 54 was when well beaten on a sloppy sealed track.

Everyone else in that field also went backwards. Some severly.



The winner of the 4th was given a 57 after running seven straight races between 53 and 64.

Four of his last five races were between 61 and 64 - and his last was a 63. He won by 2+ lengths at 5/2 but still ran a couple lengths worse than normal.



The winner of the 5th was given a 75 after running his career high, a 74, in his previous race. This was start number 17.

Yes - a 3/1 shot winner improved over his last race by one point when he was beaten a couple lengths at the same class level.

The winner of the 9th was given a 92 after his last 3 of 51, 82, 89. He did come off a layoff and had some nice 100+ back numbers. The runner up will get an 88, a lifetime top in career start number 19.

Yeah the winner had obviously returned to ok form ... but he also had a four race stretch of 100, 101, 106, and 99 last year. The 9/1 shot who ran 2nd ran 2 points faster than last time .. and a lot of beaten horses made big backward moves.

Again, all used the same variant, including the Illinois Derby.

It seems like 1 point was shaved off of the ILL Derby... and since it was longer than those other races and involved more running into head-wind .. shouldn't it be the other way if any?

[parsixfarms]

I think part of it is people don't realize that the Aqueduct 6F timer at 9F is a little late and when 1:13 comes up on the screen it "feels" slow, especially compared to the 1-turn 9F at Belmont.


Huh??? I've never heard of timer problems at Aqueduct on the main track. The turf course - where races are hand-timed, yes, but never the main track.

The pace is what it is, no matter when it comes up on the screen. A half in 49.1 and 6F in 1:13+ is slow for a grade I dirt race, whether contested around one or two turns. If you don't believe me, listen to Mike Hushion who described the Excelsior in tomorrow's DRF as a "paceless race." The same article described the pace of the Wood as "excruciatingly slow."

[cmorioles]

Huh??? I've never heard of timer problems at Aqueduct on the main track. The turf course - where races are hand-timed, yes, but never the main track.

The pace is what it is, no matter when it comes up on the screen. A half in 49.1 and 6F in 1:13+ is slow for a grade I dirt race, whether contested around one or two turns. If you don't believe me, listen to Mike Hushion who described the Excelsior in tomorrow's DRF as a "paceless race." The same article described the pace of the Wood as "excruciatingly slow."

I think I'd rather listen to people that bet. They are off base on this one. Ask them what the average winning pace time is for 9f at Aqueduct. I guarantee Mike Hushion doesn't have a clue. When you normalize the final time, the average final time for the winner of 9f races in New York are as follows:

Aqu-ID, 73.85
Bel, 74.09
Aqu, 74.69
Sar, 73.89

You think he, or the writer of the article, know that the 6f pace times for 9f races at Aqueduct are routinely the slowest in New York by an average of nearly 4/5ths of a second? I don't track half mile times in routes, but I know the difference would be even greater, more than a full second.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

I think I'd rather listen to people that bet. They are off base on this one. Ask them what the average winning pace time is for 9f at Aqueduct. I guarantee Mike Hushion doesn't have a clue. When you normalize the final time, the average final time for the winner of 9f races in New York are as follows:

Aqu-ID, 73.85
Bel, 74.09
Aqu, 74.69
Sar, 73.89

You think he, or the writer of the article, know that the 6f pace times for 9f races at Aqueduct are routinely the slowest in New York by an average of nearly 4/5ths of a second? I don't track half mile times in routes, but I know the difference would be even greater, more than a full second.

I totally agree with everything above.

However ... I have a question.

cmorioles - War Pass finished 2nd and was a half length loser of the Wood Memorial a few years ago.

He dueled with a Bill Mott rabbit through fractions of 22.46 46.07 1:11.50 1:38.42 1:52.35 and just missed. Pretty hot fractions for 9f at AQU on a not-so fast main track.

My question is simply this ... did the hapless rabbit have an impact on the outcome of that race? Keep in mind those two put over 6 lengths on the rest of the field through that wicked 22.46 opening quarter.

[cmorioles]

Drugs, we can do this all day.

First, you ignored the 1st race.

The third, the horse was dropping from two poor races at 10k to 4k. He is in the hands of a very poor trainer after being claimed 3 back. If you want to believe he ran back to his good races, good luck.

The 4th was a brutal pace for those cheap fillies. Of course they are going to run slower. It was 20 points faster than the speed figure.

In the fifth, it could be possible the horse improved a little more, but did you look at the horses behind him? Also, the pace was about 8 points faster than the final time, and since the winner actually led from the 1/2 call home, the 75 is probably a little better than it looks. Giving him even higher would be unrealistic.

I agree the 9th is the toughest to judge. I think the runner up is the best horse to judge for the figure. He was given a lifetime top, basically a pair up, in his 19th career start while being beaten pretty easily.

As for the general "a lot of beaten horses made big backwards moves"...all I can say is no sh!t, that is why they were beaten. I realize the horses had a headwind coming home, but even after adjusting for this the paces of the routes were honest to fast. By far the slowest was the Illinios Derby in relation to final time. This causes lots of horses to move backwards when they are beaten.

R1: Fast 11
R3: Fast 3
R4: Fast 20
R5: Fast 8
R7: Slow 6
R9: Fast 8

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Drugs, we can do this all day.

I know.

[cmorioles]

I totally agree with everything above.

However ... I have a question.

cmorioles - War Pass finished 2nd and was a half length loser of the Wood Memorial a few years ago.

He dueled with a Bill Mott rabbit through fractions of 22.46 46.07 1:11.50 1:38.42 1:52.35 and just missed. Pretty hot fractions for 9f at AQU on a not-so fast main track.

My question is simply this ... did the hapless rabbit have an impact on the outcome of that race? Keep in mind those two put over 6 lengths on the rest of the field through that wicked 22.46 opening quarter.

I would assume he did, but War Pass was also the kind of horse that tended to go too fast anyway and tire late. We never learned if he was the type that could rate and go 9f or not, so there is no way to be sure. If I had to guess, I would say without the rabbit he slows down, but it is just a guess.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

I would assume he did, but War Pass was also the kind of horse that tended to go too fast anyway and tire late. We never learned if he was the type that could rate and go 9f or not, so there is no way to be sure. If I had to guess, I would say without the rabbit he slows down, but it is just a guess.

You're way better than this.

Even I wouldn't still argue that on my most stubborn day.

[cmorioles]

You're way better than this.

Even I wouldn't still argue that on my most stubborn day.

I honestly don't remember that much about it because I don't worry about races that happened two years ago. What was the point of the question? Since I didn't know I just gave a generic answer.

[parsixfarms]

I think I'd rather listen to people that bet. They are off base on this one. Ask them what the average winning pace time is for 9f at Aqueduct. I guarantee Mike Hushion doesn't have a clue. When you normalize the final time, the average final time for the winner of 9f races in New York are as follows:

Aqu-ID, 73.85
Bel, 74.09
Aqu, 74.69
Sar, 73.89

You think he, or the writer of the article, know that the 6f pace times for 9f races at Aqueduct are routinely the slowest in New York by an average of nearly 4/5ths of a second? I don't track half mile times in routes, but I know the difference would be even greater, more than a full second.

Putting aside the question of whether Mike Hushion knows what he's doing (the numbers seem to suggest that he does), what are you basing these "averages" on, because the only 9F races at Aqueduct these days seem to be for NY-bred NW1X optional claimers or off-the-turf races, hardly a reasonable comparison. These are graded races that we are talking about. With that in mind, and recognizing that the track was faster than par for Bellamy Road's Wood, here are the fractional splits for the Wood and Excelsior from 2005-09:

2009 Wood: 24.2, 48.0, 1:12:1, 1:49.2
2009 Excelsior: 25.2, 50.3, 1:14.3, 1:50.4

2008 Wood: 22.2, 46.0, 1:11.2, 1:52.1
2009 Excelsior: 23.4, 48.2, 1:13.3, 1:51

2007 Wood: 23.1, 47.1, 1:10.4, 1:49.2
2008 Excelsior: 23.3, 46.3, 1:10.1, 1:48

2006 Wood: 23.0, 46.1, 1:11.0, 1:51.2
2006 Excelsior: 23.2, 46.1, 1:10.3, 1:48.1

2005 Wood: 23.0, 46.0, 1:09.4, 1:47
2005 Excelsior: 24.2, 48.1, 1:12.3, 1:50.2

Based on these splits, I don't know how one can argue that the pace for the races this past weekend were "average" relative to the class of the horses involved.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

I honestly don't remember that much about it because I don't worry about races that happened two years ago. What was the point of the question? Since I didn't know I just gave a generic answer.

Huge dust-up.

You were one of a few different screen names who typed a lot mocking me when I said that the rabbit would hurt War Pass and probably cost him the race and it hurt my feelings considerably.

The rabbit was supposed to be way too slow and a poor choice of rabbit.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

With that in mind, and recognizing that the track was faster than par for Bellamy Road's Wood, here are the fractional splits for the Wood and Excelsior from 2005-09:

2009 Wood: 24.2, 48.0, 1:12:1
2009 Excelsior: 25.2, 50.3, 1:14.3

2008 Wood: 22.2, 46.0, 1:11.2
2009 Excelsior: 23.4, 48.2, 1:13.3

2007 Wood: 23.1, 47.1, 1:10.4
2008 Excelsior: 23.3, 46.3, 1:10.1

2006 Wood: 23.0, 46.1, 1:11.0
2006 Excelsior: 23.2, 46.1, 1:10.3

2005 Wood: 23.0, 46.0, 1:09.4
2005 Excelsior: 24.2, 48.1, 1:12.3

Based on these splits, I don't know how one can argue that the pace for the races this past weekend were "average" relative to the class of the horses involved.

Why not show the final times for each race as well?

[cmorioles]

I'm basing them on all the races at Aqueduct over the last several years. If what you say was a factor, the actual average pace time for Aqueduct would be even slower than what I reported because cheap, bad, and young horses always run faster pace times in relation to final time than classier fit horses do. If you took 100 races won by NW1 NY Breds at 9f that were won in a time of 1:51, and 100 races won be G1 horses with the same conditions and final time, the G1 horses would run slower to the 4f and 6f calls on average and finish faster.

How Mike Hushion trains horses has absolutely nothing to do with how he evaluates the pace of races that have already happened. Just because I know a lot about making figures (at least I think I do) doesn't mean I know how to prepare a horse for his first start or get him to break out of the gate.

As for all the past Wood's, I use figures, not raw times. These are what I have:

2005: 114 pace, 111 speed
2006: 116 pace, 93 speed
2007: 108 pace, 98 speed
2008: 122 pace, 94 speed
2009: 104 pace, 104 speed
2010: 103 pace, 109 speed

It looks to me like you have had a bunch of horses going too fast early and finishing like plow horses in the Wood. Perhaps that is why people are fooled into thinking the pace was so slow this year. It was a little slow, but hardly paceless. Maybe this year the winner of the Wood will actually accomplish something in the future in a dirt route. It would be a nice change.

[randallscott35]

Huge dust-up.

You were one of a few different screen names who typed a lot mocking me when I said that the rabbit would hurt War Pass and probably cost him the race and it hurt my feelings considerably.

The rabbit was supposed to be way too slow and a poor choice of rabbit.

Men shouldn't hold grudges. Especially ones who criticize a feminine throwing president.

[cmorioles]

Huge dust-up.

You were one of a few different screen names who typed a lot mocking me when I said that the rabbit would hurt War Pass and probably cost him the race and it hurt my feelings considerably.

The rabbit was supposed to be way too slow and a poor choice of rabbit.

Well I just said he probably did affect him. I was probably wrong, and I think I admitted as much after. I'm wrong a lot in this game. Since he never ran again though, I won't say it is 100% certain because he was a headstrong horse that was hard to handle early anyway.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Men shouldn't hold grudges. Especially ones who criticize a feminine throwing president.

Read a history book. It is perfectly acceptable for men to hold personal grudges. Wars are fought over such things.

I jerked off into a girls shampoo bottle because she hurt my feelings.

I would whip myself up into an inner fenzy and try to injure even my friends in gym class and make it look like acidents if they ever did or said anything I didn't like.

There is nothing even remotely feminine about having pride.

[randallscott35]

Getting back to the thread, I agree the 109 is too high and that AL 98 is too low.

[cmorioles]

Getting back to the thread, I agree the 109 is too high and that AL 98 is too low.

Why? Just guessing? Any insight?

[randallscott35]

Why? Just guessing? Any insight?

I posted in the other thread on this and parisix sums up pretty much how I feel. AQ was not slow on Sat and that time for the Wood was avg, I think sometimes draw off performances simply get overrated....The HAW fig is tougher. That track was pretty slow so the raw final doesn't bother me.

Figs aren't always perfect. Remember that Arnold(I think) maiden a few years ago getting 20 subtracted from it? It does happen.

[NTamm1215]

I posted in the other thread on this and parisix sums up pretty much how I feel. AQ was not slow on Sat and that time for the Wood was avg, I think sometimes draw off performances simply get overrated....The HAW fig is tougher.

Figs aren't always perfect. Remember that Arnold(I think) maiden a few years ago getting 20 subtracted from it? It does happen.

You think that Eskendereya got a 109 because he drew off late?

He ran a very strong final time based on the pace of the race. Was it aided by the pace of the race? More than likely but when you take his time at face value stacked up against the Excelsior it was a strong effort.

If there was one horse in any of the stakes portion whose figure can be taken with a grain of salt (and not because it's wrong, I think it's right on) its Warrior's Reward who ran a fifth of a second faster for the 7/8ths in the Carter than Eightyfiveinafifty did in the Bay Shore despite the pace of the Carter being nearly a second slower. I think Warrior's Reward's effort was outstanding.

NT

[randallscott35]

You think that Eskendereya got a 109 because he drew off late?

He ran a very strong final time based on the pace of the race. Was it aided by the pace of the race? More than likely but when you take his time at face value stacked up against the Excelsior it was a strong effort.

If there was one horse in any of the stakes portion whose figure can be taken with a grain of salt (and not because it's wrong, I think it's right on) its Warrior's Reward who ran a fifth of a second faster for the 7/8ths in the Carter than Eightyfiveinafifty did in the Bay Shore despite the pace of the Carter being nearly a second slower. I think Warrior's Reward's effort was outstanding.

NT

Humans make these. They are not infallable. And yes I think there are times that fig makers fall in love with certain performances....and also downgrade horses based on previous races.

[parsixfarms]

Why not show the final times for each race as well?

I had not done so, because we were discussing the pace of the race, but since you asked, I have edited the above post to include final times.

If you put the pace of the Wood in the context of other Derby preps, the pace in the Florida Derby (46.3, 1:10.3) was generally perceived as "hot," while Discreetly Mine was viewed as getting away with murder in a Risen Star that had fractions somewhat comparable (48.3, 1:13.2) to the Wood.

I have questioned the figure for the Wood because, to my way of thinking (and I think history bears this out), when the Wood winner has been perceived as a legitimate Derby threat, they have usually completed the race in the 1:47-48 range: Fusaichi Pegasus, 1:47.4; Congaree, 1:47.4; Buddha, 1:48.3; Empire Maker, 1:48.3; Bellamy Road, 1:47.0; I Want Revenge, 1:49.2. While I am not doubting the quality of Eskendereya's performance, the final time does not measure up, and I did not perceive the track as being 6 or 7 lengths slower than par on Saturday. That's why I questioned the figure, especially when the performances of Eightyfiveinafifty and Warrior's Reward, which I think were on par with their respective races, were given lower figures.

[parsixfarms]

He ran a very strong final time based on the pace of the race. Was it aided by the pace of the race? More than likely but when you take his time at face value stacked up against the Excelsior it was a strong effort.

If there was one horse in any of the stakes portion whose figure can be taken with a grain of salt (and not because it's wrong, I think it's right on) its Warrior's Reward who ran a fifth of a second faster for the 7/8ths in the Carter than Eightyfiveinafifty did in the Bay Shore despite the pace of the Carter being nearly a second slower. I think Warrior's Reward's effort was outstanding.

I agree completely about Warrior's Reward's performance.

I think it is dangerous to legitimize Eskendereya's performance off the Excelsior. I thought that was an ugly race where the winner gutted a win out at a distance that is probably farther than his best (nor was it the best distance for More Than a Reason or Nite Light for that matter). I don't think any of those horses produced their "A" effort, so to say that Goldsville's figure is legit because he ran a comparable figure in his prior race is a mistake, in my opinion.

[blackthroatedwind]

I agree completely about Warrior's Reward's performance.

I think it is dangerous to legitimize Eskendereya's performance off the Excelsior. I thought that was an ugly race where the winner gutted a win out at a distance that is probably farther than his best (nor was it the best distance for More Than a Reason or Nite Light for that matter). I don't think any of those horses produced their "A" effort, so to say that Goldsville's figure is legit because he ran a comparable figure in his prior race is a mistake, in my opinion.


The funny thing is that the Excelsior provided an absolutely perfect backdrop to make the Wood figure. It couldn't have made the number easier to make, accept, and understand.

[parsixfarms]

The funny thing is that the Excelsior provided an absolutely perfect backdrop to make the Wood figure. It couldn't have made the number easier to make, accept, and understand.

I thought Eskenderya's Wood was slow early, fast late; the Excelsior was just plain slow. I agree that the Excelsior provides a perfect backdrop for a figure maker to say that Eskenderaya ran "x" points faster than Goldsville. It does not answer whether the figure for both races is too high (to the extent that final times were influenced by the pace in the respective races).

[blackthroatedwind]

I thought Eskenderya's Wood was slow early, fast late; the Excelsior was just plain slow. I agree that the Excelsior provides a perfect backdrop for a figure maker to say that Eskenderaya ran "x" points faster than Goldsville. It does not answer whether the figure for both races is too high (to the extent that final times were influenced by the pace in the respective races).

" You thought ".....while a highly respected figuremaker, CMOrioles, says differently.

I apologize if this seems nasty, but sorry if I don't respect his thoughts more than yours. Appearances can be very deceiving in this game.

[the_fat_man]

" You thought ".....while a highly respected figuremaker, CMOrioles, says differently.

I apologize if this seems nasty, but sorry if I don't respect his thoughts more than yours. Appearances can be very deceiving in this game.

Why don't you take a moment to comment about what appeared to be an inside bias for some of these races on Saturday. Don't you think that the fact that more than a few horses made significant inside gains is relevant to the discussion? Especially in the Excelsior, where More Than A Reason looks like he's going to run them down midstretch, only to hit a wall, and Nite Light can't keep up early/mid stretch, then 'surges' late for 2nd. I think more than the pace affected what happened in the Excelsior.

[cmorioles]

One thing to consider is if the pace was "crawling" as some say, drawing off to win by 9 is even more impressive. Crawling paces produce tighter finishes, not romps, most of the time.

[randallscott35]

One thing to consider is if the pace was "crawling" as some say, drawing off to win by 9 is even more impressive. Crawling paces produce tighter finishes, not romps, most of the time.

And that crawling pace in the Excel produced just that.

[the_fat_man]

One thing to consider is if the pace was "crawling" as some say, drawing off to win by 9 is even more impressive. Crawling paces produce tighter finishes, not romps, most of the time.

BINGO. (Well, relatively)

[parsixfarms]

One thing to consider is if the pace was "crawling" as some say, drawing off to win by 9 is even more impressive. Crawling paces produce tighter finishes, not romps, most of the time.

I agree completely. That's why I went out of my way to say that Eskendereya's performance was particularly impressive. I haven't questioned his performance; only the figure.

[cmorioles]

And that crawling pace in the Excel produced just that.

A bunch of evenly matched horses with similar running styles do that as well. One thing I am certain is that the Excelsior was not a crawl for the horses entered. It was a very even race.

[parsixfarms]

" You thought ".....while a highly respected figuremaker, CMOrioles, says differently.

I apologize if this seems nasty, but sorry if I don't respect his thoughts more than yours. Appearances can be very deceiving in this game.

So how would you describe the pace of those two races relative to the class of the horses involved: slow, average or fast?

[blackthroatedwind]

So how would you describe the pace of those two races relative to the class of the horses involved: slow, average or fast?

I defer to people like CMOrioles who make pace figures.

[parsixfarms]

I defer to people like CMOrioles who make pace figures.

Nice dodge.

I wouldn't have thought that you'd need to rely on a figure maker to have an opinion of the dynamics of a race.

[blackthroatedwind]

Nice dodge.

I wouldn't have thought that you'd need to rely on a figure maker to have an opinion of the dynamics of a race.

Nice dodge?

I apologize for answering your question.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

I thought Eskenderya's Wood was slow early, fast late.

The slower you think the pace was - the more impressive you have to think Eskenderya's race was. You don't win like that over halfway respectable opposition when the pace is a true crawl.

The slower you think the pace was - the more you can entertain the idea that a likely much faster pace in the Derby will have a likely negative impact on the horse because he will have to work a lot harder early or get his face real dirty for a change in mid-pack under a wide-trip loving jockey.

They wash each other out for me.

Eskenderya is obviously the most likely winner - but I'm not a big fan. I think both Quality Road and I Want Revenge were probably better horses at this time. Esk is also from the barn of a trainer who's suspiciously on fire and not very easy to root for.

I'm a much bigger fan of Eightyfiveinafifty and Sidney's Candy as horses because they are much cooler.

If nothing changes with the way they're made - I think 15 years from now Sidney's Candy will still probably have the fastest Beyer of any 2-year-old in the history of Del Mar synthetic. It such a mind-bogglingly wide margin lead he has now.

And when you think 2yo's running huge going 5.5f .. you normally think of a speed and precious pedigree and a 2yo sprint trainer. Sidney's Candy is the total polar opposite of all that. Sire who ran a 123 Beyer going 10fs. Late developing 2nd dam who was a Graded Stakes winner at 12 furlongs and was nothing if not tough and loaded with stamina. A trainer who's numbers are mind-bogglingly better with route horses than sprinters year after year on all 3 different surfaces. That's a real unique horse to me.

It's pretty obvious that Eightyfiveinafifty is the coolest horse in this crop though. As a fan ... I will be pretty happy if Eskenderya gets beat.

[10 pnt move up]

One thing to consider is if the pace was "crawling" as some say, drawing off to win by 9 is even more impressive. Crawling paces produce tighter finishes, not romps, most of the time.

Not really

signed,

Sydney's Candy

[the_fat_man]

If nothing changes with the way they're made - I think 15 years from now Sidney's Candy will still probably have the fastest Beyer of any 2-year-old in the history of Del Mar synthetic. It such a mind-bogglingly wide margin lead he has now.



On the one hand we (FINALLY) have most of the intelligencia, even you, admitting that Beyers aren't very good on synthetics. On the other hand, we continue to rate horses (historically) based on Beyer #'s. Certainly even you can notice the disjointedness here.

[cmorioles]

Not really

signed,

Sydney's Candy

Well, you point out one, and to be honest that pace wasn't really slow for synthetics either...just average. I did say usually in any case.