How is it possible...
 

that the Vanderbilt is the slowest 6 furlong race on the card? The sprinters are as bad as the handicap horses. How much did it rain?

I don't think it rained until after the Vanderbilt.

And Joppa Flats posted the days best 6F time in his 7F win. 1:09.36.

http://www.equibase.com/static/chart...R072608USA.pdf

Wow , Joppa Flats finally got the job done after 20 failures :tro:

Obviously the track changed significantly.

Even a dopey horseman should have realized that.

The Go For Wand was insanely slow, though as a route it's not really comparable to the Vanderbilt.

The only thing I noticed was that before the Vanderbilt they Sealed / Harrowed the track from the opposite direction. It appeared that that they sealed it and only gave it a shallo harrowing. (It that even makes any sense.)

It really didn't rain until just before the Go For Wand and even then it only really rained for about 5 - 10 mintues. I can't say that it really changed the conditions of the track at all. It started raining during the post parade / warm up for the Go For Wand and it stopped raining by the end of the race and the sun was out before the end of the race. Actually, by the time I got back to my seat there was rainbow that seemed to end at the Saratoga tote board, at least from my vantage point. I actually told my wife that I always knew that the pot' o gold at the end of the rainbow was at the saratoga toteboard. She wasn't amused, even knowing I was alive in the pick 4 to 6 horses.

I guess my point is that the only thing I saw that could impact the speed figures was the fact that the grounds crew was sealing / harrowing the track differenty and the actual rain fall was insignificant.

I think the Go For Wand was an oddly run race with the pace being slow and the jockeys trying to keep Ginger Punch bottled up inside. The fact that she got through was unbelievable, and makes me apprecitate hot great she truely is.

If Ginger Punch is great then I can dunk over Shaq.

The old track slowed due to reasons beyond our comprehension excuse? Exactly how much did it slow down? 2 seconds?

Easily ( and more for longer distances obviously ).

Didn't you take the "speed figures and variants" math course as part of your training? :rolleyes:

If earning over 100K as a maiden is a failure, then give me a whole barn of those failures.

The track obviously changed speeds before the eyesore that was the Vandy.

The Personal Ensign was obviously also very ugly - and this might be the first time in history that the top 3 finishers in the Whitney Stakes all ran double digit Beyers in their most recent start.

Here is how I have my figures for the day.

Race #1: 84 Pace 93 Final

Race #2: 98 Pace 92 Final

Race #3: TURF

Race #4: 106 Pace 89 Final

Race #5: TURF

Race #6: 108 Pace 102 Final

Race #7: TURF

Race #8: 117 Pace 105 Final

Race #9: 83 Pace 89 Final

Race #10: 116 Pace 117 Final

Race #11: TURF


Put it this way - if you don't believe the track changed speeds - you than believe that Dr. D.F.C. - who was 4th beaten less than 2 lengths at 40/1 in an N1X allowance race - would have been a clear cut 2nd in the Whitney - or would have beaten the pathetic Ginger Punch by 14 lengths had he been allowed to run in the Personal Ensign.

Incomplete assignment, Mr DrugS

where are your turf figures?

I don't believe in turf figures.

I hate these corny responses.

120 beyer for Commentator!!!!!!!!

I also noticed the REVERSE Harrowing of the track at that point. I sat right next to the ABC booth with Kenny Mayne and hank Goldberg and I asked them if they had ever seen reverse harrowing in the middle of a card like today. They said no and they had their in box producer call over to the other announcer booth of Privman and Moss to see what their reaction might be but we didn't get their answer.

I though the track and trainers DID NOT want this reverse harrowing in the middle of a race card and discussed this with the track super in the spring at Belmont?:confused:

Why did the track crew mess with the surface. I cant understand why they have to mess with it. Im glad i don't make figures for a living.

Like they would have any clue. . .

The fractions seemed to suggest the track was not that much different then it was 2 races earlier. The only thing that was slow was the final eighth. Of course the few speed variant courses that I took told me that 1 1/8th races and 6 furlong races are different animals.

Geeesh BTW, I knew you gave up a lot to be a pro handicapper, but a career in the NBA as well as a job in Manhattan. Now I'm truly impressed by you intelligence and your athletic ability.


Seriously, Why don't you think GP is great? Perhaps you and I have different definitions of great. After all she has complied a rather nice record of 11 wins, 5 seconds and 2 thirds from 19 lifetime starts. Here only start where she failed to hit the board was her third lifetime start where she encountered an off track for the first time. Obviously, she has no problem with the slop now, as we saw her victory in the final BC "DISTAFF".

What then makes a great horse in your opinion?

Everybody has different definitions.
The things you pointed out obviously indicate that Ginger Punch is a very good, and fairly versatile horse. She has won graded stakes races in the slop and on fast surfaces, and around both one turn and two turns. There are definitely a lot of good horses out there that can't do that.

I think the reason that many people wouldn't call her great is that she has never really run a "great" individual race (her top lifetime BSF is only a 104), and several of her big wins (last year's Ruffian, this year's Louisville BC, and yesterday's race) have been run in very slow times.

I don't think anybody would dispute that she is a very accomplished mare who deserves high marks for consistency, but the mythical title of "great" is extremely subjective.

Jack Van Berg used to say that "the only place time matter is in prison." I simply can't fault a horse for running "very slow" time yet managing to win and hit the board in Graded stakes races. I know at least yesterday the fact that she only galloped along for 7 1/2 furlongs before squeezing between two horses in upper strecth to pull away to a somewhat easy victory is an indication of a very speacial if not great horse.

I do agree that everybody has different scales of greatness and it is a difficult thing to define especially now that we rarely get to see the best horses of any given generation race into their four year old campaign, except of course this year with Curlin.

timing is everything. ginger punch was lucky enough to be born and race at a time when there aren't any fast individuals. it's hard to say a horse is great, when so many horses who have come before-and possibly weren't able to enjoy the benefit of subpar competition-would easily defeat the supposed great horse of today.
it's not as tho time means everything, but slow times should mean something.

So, in your opinion, RUNNING LESS than the competition makes a horse great? :rolleyes:

If good enough to usually beat mediocre competition is great then Ginger Punch is an all-timer.

However, if you are under some sort of delusion that Ginger Punch is actually great then I am curious as to what sort of stratosphere you believe Zenyatta exists in.

From the looks of it - The Beyer Speed Figures had a split variant even more severe than mine.

Seeing that they gave Munnings a 90 for winning race #2 compared to my 92 - that tells me that they had each of the first four dirt race going 2 full Beyer points slower than I did.

They gave Commentator a 120 where I gave him a 117. Which means they have Student Council running a 112 where I have him running a 109.

It was obviously a very tough day for making figures - but I'm a little surprised they had their split that much more extreme than mine.

When did I say she "ran less"? I said she galloped along for 7 1/2 furlongs and than ran the final 3/16ths after splitting horses in the stretch. And yes if a horse is able to as you say "RUN LESS" and still win the race it makes them better than the competition. Whether it makes them great or not I don't know, but apparently it is your OPINION that it doesn't.

For the record who does qualify as a great horse? Apparently I need and education and hopefully you and BTW can teach me something.

Please limit the list to active horses.

Thanks in advance for sharing your brilliance.

Does anyone know if synthetic offers this exciting change of surface conditions from race to race that dirt does ? I realize these unexpected variables in dirt track conditions appeal to the sophisticated dirt officiandos so I wonder if synthetic offers the same type of unpredictable challenge in the middle of a card ?

2942.....and still going.

Ever watch Del Mar?

Not to change the subject, well I guess it is now the subject but i thought that the wording of point made in the NTRA paper that Paulick published today was very troublesome. I will link it in a minute.

http://www.paulickreport.com/wp-cont...bhscn00022.pdf

Under the heading of Injury reporting and prevention
1. Racing Surfaces
a. Benchmark safety of all surfaces and/or mandatory switch to syntheitc surfaces

I dont want to go through the paper on a point by point basis and some of it is positive but are they serious about the racing surface thing? How exactly can you measure the safety of a surface? And when was the consensus reached that synthetic surfaces are signifigantly safer than others? there is no question that a synthetic surface is better under really wet conditions but how many days does that really effect? I am sure that there are other conditions where they are no better or safer. Mandatory anything is always troublesome without absolutes.

I also was amused by the proposed ban on races of more than 14 horses. That has been a real issue in recent times...

On the topic of changing track speeds, here's an interesting presentation by Jerry Brown (Thorograph) from the 2004 Handicappers Expo which essentially states the the speed of racetracks actually change from race to race most of the time because the moisture content of the track only stays consistent if water is added at the same rate that it's evaporating. This is almost impossible as the moisture content is affected by everything from wind, temperature, humidity, sun, track maintanence, how often the water truck comes through etc. Thus, the speed of a fast track with unchanged weather conditions can actually vary quite a bit over the course of an afternoon. It's an interesting presentation for those interested who are figure-oriented.

http://www.thorograph.com/archive/fi...slide_show.ppt

No, synthetic is predictably sucky. You definitely have an angle there.

Saratoga track maintenace are experts at turning the last several hundred yards of the stretch into a quicksand like surface. Several years ago, on opening day, they rolled out that technique, only to have it miraculously groomed away for the feature.

They must be doing that surface prep on purpose because I can't imagine they don't have a tight grip on how to maintain that surface.

Maybe Whirlaway knew how to run at the Spa. Outer rail. Here's a nice read on our late, great, and beloved swashbuckler, "Mt Longtail". The only horse ever to win the triple crown and Travers. It reminds one somewhat of horse racing's current, flamboyant star, Evening Attire.

http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/stati...ical_cameos_13

As a footnote, Affirmed briefly matched Whirlaway's triple crown - Travers record. Until one of the most famous DQs in horse racing history placed him 2nd to his arch rival Alydar in the Travers. That was their last clash.

OOOOOOOOO