Jan 24th at GP just keeps looking weirder and weirder

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Even if you ignore Beyers 100% - he ran light years better than he did the last time.

No question, and if a horse improved that much at any other time in his career, it would obviously be extremely strange. To me it just seems far less strange given that the jump came between his first and second lifetime starts, and also came with a significant stretchout to a distance he was likely to prefer.
Of course, I didn't think any of this before the race, so this is obviously just me searching for an explanation after the fact....but to me it doesn't seem THAT odd for him to have improved a great deal given these circumstances. Although, as you point out, the improvement appears to have been quite enormous....so who knows.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by miraja2

No question, and if a horse improved that much at any other time in his career, it would obviously be extremely strange. To me it just seems far less strange given that the jump came between his first and second lifetime starts, and also came with a significant stretchout to a distance he was likely to prefer.
Of course, I didn't think any of this before the race, so this is obviously just me searching for an explanation after the fact....but to me it doesn't seem THAT odd for him to have improved a great deal given these circumstances. Although, as you point out, the improvement appears to have been quite enormous....so who knows.

Yeah - I'd never call that a suspicious improvement. Any horse is capable of exploding or deflating in just career start #2.

I'm just suspicious about the Beyers that day. It appears either the numbers for the early part of the card might be slower than they should be ... or TOFP and YLM actually might have run better than the 116 would indicate.

[ArlJim78]

I'd say yes the beyers may have been low that first time. The second start by Dunkirk was solid by all accounts.

also, Georgie Boy looks like a new animal now and I'm not sure if he's only a sprinter either.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

I'd say yes the beyers may have been low that first time. The second start by Dunkirk was solid by all accounts.

also, Georgie Boy looks like a new animal now and I'm not sure if he's only a sprinter either.

This is because Walsh went old school on him and let him work himself into shape. 7f and 8f are probably his best distances, have to think they have the BC Sprint circled with him also.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Georgie Boy was in awesome form before she backed off and gave him all the time.

He was by far the best 3yo in So Cal during the Derby prep season imo - and I know he will route well - because he already has.

I just thought both of his two comeback races this year weren't much at all. And his last two wins ... while clear-cut and all in important races - I think they weren't a great deal either.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

BUT

If every other horse in the race backs up in relation to the winner, the performance isn't impressive UNLESS the final time was (figure) fast --- cause he didn't run fast enough to drop them? How did he drop them then? No answer.

He dropped them simply because they quit and he didn't.

The first half mile of that race was run in fractions similar to what you'd expect to see from stake horses going the distance. The last three furlongs of the race was BY FAR the weakest part of the race .. and I really don't care what happens in that part of the race.

Yes, Dunkirk came back and won in eye-popping fashion at 6/5 odds.

But - the three horses involved in the pace ... they are who you want from the race ..

a.) because they performed best in the strong part of the race - the first half

and

b.) because they performed poorly in the weak part of the race .. the final 3fs.

It's only because of part b that you get a price on them the next time they run. And like I mentioned in the post ... of the three .. two won back next out - one running 30 points faster Beyer wise and the other 40+ points faster and winning at 16/1 odds. The only remaining horse of the three involved in the pace - he hasn't run back - and I believe he was the 1st timer that John Velazquez took off of Dunkirk to ride.

horses who are in 7th place behind a pace meltdown - even if only 4 lengths off the pace - and win big ... they are not horses I want any part of next out even though they can win. I'd always rather have one who is burned up in the meltdown and stops. They can improve result dramatically in a softer pace race .. and they are more likely to get ignored in the betting rather than pounded.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

He dropped them simply because they quit and he didn't.

The first half mile of that race was run in fractions similar to what you'd expect to see from stake horses going the distance. The last three furlongs of the race was BY FAR the weakest part of the race .. and I really don't care what happens in that part of the race.

Yes, Dunkirk came back and won in eye-popping fashion at 6/5 odds.

But - the three horses involved in the pace ... they are who you want from the race ..

a.) because they performed best in the strong part of the race - the first half

and

b.) because they performed poorly in the weak part of the race .. the final 3fs.

It's only because of part b that you get a price on them the next time they run. And like I mentioned in the post ... of the three .. two won back next out - one running 30 points faster Beyer wise and the other 40+ points faster and winning at 16/1 odds. The only remaining horse of the three involved in the pace - he hasn't run back - and I believe he was the 1st timer that John Velazquez took off of Dunkirk to ride.

horses who are in 7th place behind a pace meltdown - even if only 4 lengths off the pace - and win big ... they are not horses I want any part of next out even though they can win. I'd always rather have one who is burned up in the meltdown and stops. They can improve result dramatically in a softer pace race .. and they are more likely to get ignored in the betting rather than pounded.

I really cant take anymore... but a sock in it...You think you are going to teach the fat man..the guy is so pompous he wouldn't let Beyer Crist or any handicapper teach him never mind a jerk from Erie

[the_fat_man]

You constantly DWELL on the OBVIOUS. No doubt, if a number of horses are dooking it out and the pace falls apart, you want them back. Though you'd be surprised how often the horse doing the most running in terms of the setup just doesn't run well next out. (This is an angle I follow and it disappoints in relation to some others.)

The POINT of this thread, however, is that THE WINNER ran a HUGE EFFORT

AND

he wasn't supposed to given the FIGURE and, by most interpretations, THE SETUP. By all conventional accounts he 'sucked up', 'got a perfect trip', etc.

Either he's an anomaly or the system needs tweaking.