What are they waiting for? Nominate her to the Matriarch

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

You're illustrating a great reason why simply analyzing pace numerically is a futile exercise that will lead to losing wagers. A lot of them.

I strongly disagree. Once you know how fast the track is and how it is playing, I think you will know what a reasonable pace is. I think it a huge mistake and a circular argument to say that "the front-runners must have gone way too fast, since they quit, even though they didn't appear to go that fast and even though the pace was only moderate based on the way the track is playing today."

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I strongly disagree. Once you know how fast the track is and how it is playing, I think you will know what a reasonable pace is. I think it a huge mistake and a circular argument to say that "the front-runners must have gone way too fast, since they quit, even though they didn't appear to go that fast and even though the pace was only moderate based on the way the track is playing today."

Make no mistake, :47 is a solid half for a 10f race at CD, even for the BC Classic.

The mistake that you're making is assuming that a simple analysis of the numerics is going to lead you to a conclusion on the outcome of the race. Have you looked at the pace figures for the Classic? It was a strong pace. It also completely collapsed. Even if you don't think the half-mile time itself was fast you can't deny that the pace took a mighty toll on the horses contesting it. When you have a pace, specifically in a route race that collapses, the late runners are going to benefit.

[DaTruth]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

Make no mistake, :47 is a solid half for a 10f race at CD, even for the BC Classic.

Of the six BC Classics run at CD, it was the third fastest half mile split. There was a tie for the fastest, 46 3/5 by the pacesetters in the Invasor and Concern wins.

[DaTruth]

In Tiznow's Classic at CD, the half was in 47 2/5. The remaining splits were
24 3/5, 24, 24 3/5.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by DaTruth

In Tiznow's Classic at CD, the half was in 47 2/5. The remaining splits were
24 3/5, 24, 24 3/5.

Being MOTO as hell - but the 24 flat 4th quarter there is a great indication that the speed was still strong after six furlongs.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Being MOTO as hell - but the 24 flat 4th quarter there is a great indication that the speed was still strong after six furlongs.

Yeah but the track was lightning that day. Chiluki set a track record and I think kona gold did as well.

The splits in the classic were slow. No?

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

The splits in the classic were slow. No?

10fs at CD is a distance where I don't have pars to make a pace figure - it's not a commonly run distance.

But yeah, the 2000 Classic pace was certainly a lot slower than this years.

The 4th quarter fraction is often a pretty good tell in races at that distance. That's the part of the race where stretch runners need to start making up considerable ground. It's a hell of a lot easier a task for stretch runners when that 4th quarter is in 26 flat - when it's in 24 flat - they better have a rocket up their ass.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

Make no mistake, :47 is a solid half for a 10f race at CD, even for the BC Classic.

Yep, and 1:11 is even stronger than that.

The one-turn races at CD always yield crazy fast pace and fast final times in relation to the routes because of the run-up. There have been several instances over the years of horses running 20 and change first quarters at CD.

For whatever reason - and I'm sure it's possibly mostly "run-up" related - you don't get the same kind of pin-action with the paces in routes there.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

Make no mistake, :47 is a solid half for a 10f race at CD, even for the BC Classic.

The mistake that you're making is assuming that a simple analysis of the numerics is going to lead you to a conclusion on the outcome of the race. Have you looked at the pace figures for the Classic? It was a strong pace. It also completely collapsed. Even if you don't think the half-mile time itself was fast you can't deny that the pace took a mighty toll on the horses contesting it. When you have a pace, specifically in a route race that collapses, the late runners are going to benefit.

Don't get me wrong. I think that :47 was a good, solid pace. I just don't think it was a suicide pace that gave Zenyatta a big advantage.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Don't get me wrong. I think that :47 was a good, solid pace. I just don't think it was a suicide pace that gave Zenyatta a big advantage.

The dynamics of the race were in her favor. That much is indisputable. Does it take away from her overall performance? Not really in my opinion but it's still a fact.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

The dynamics of the race were in her favor. That much is indisputable. Does it take away from her overall performance? Not really in my opinion but it's still a fact.

I will ask you the same question that I asked BTW. You say, "The dynamics of the race were in her favor". Are you saying that in hindsight or would you have said that 5 minutes before the race if you knew that First Dude would have a 1 length lead in :47?

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I will ask you the same question that I asked BTW. You say, "The dynamics of the race were in her favor". Are you saying that in hindsight or would you have said that 5 minutes before the race if you knew that First Dude would have a 1 length lead in :47?

Who gives a s.hit what I would have said before the race? What I said before the race was I hope Blame wins. I thought he was going to get as good a pace setup as Zenyatta, had an advantage in terms of positional speed and I had no doubt he'd get 10fs. Thus, I bet Blame and Zenyatta (not a redboard).

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

Who gives a s.hit what I would have said before the race? What I said before the race was I hope Blame wins. I thought he was going to get as good a pace setup as Zenyatta, had an advantage in terms of positional speed and I had no doubt he'd get 10fs. Thus, I bet Blame and Zenyatta (not a redboard).

Well that means you made a good call. Nice work.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

Who gives a s.hit what I would have said before the race? What I said before the race was I hope Blame wins. I thought he was going to get as good a pace setup as Zenyatta, had an advantage in terms of positional speed and I had no doubt he'd get 10fs. Thus, I bet Blame and Zenyatta (not a redboard).

I think Rupert's looking at some of the fractions posted in the one-turn races that day - and he's assuming they should translate to the two-turn routes. It doesn't work like that at some tracks.

There are some tracks - Saratoga for instance - where the paces in 6.5 furlong races are always much faster than the paces at 6fs and 5.5s. You could assemble the slowest NY breds around - and they have a shot at going 21 and change for a first quarter going 6.5f at Saratoga.

It's why you need pace figures - and it's why you should have pars for every single distance at the track.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I will ask you the same question that I asked BTW. You say, "The dynamics of the race were in her favor". Are you saying that in hindsight or would you have said that 5 minutes before the race if you knew that First Dude would have a 1 length lead in :47?

There was only one other dirt route that day - the Juvenile at 8.5fs.

Boys at Tosconova has a triple digit Beyer at 5fs this year - Uncle Mo has a triple digit Beyer at 6fs this year - they went 6fs in the Juvenile in 1:11.92 ..

You really think a race at 10fs should have gone at a MUCH faster pace than that one at just 8.5?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

There was only one other dirt route that day - the Juvenile at 8.5fs.

Boys at Tosconova has a triple digit Beyer at 5fs this year - Uncle Mo has a triple digit Beyer at 6fs this year - they went 6fs in the Juvenile in 1:11.92 ..

You really think a race at 10fs should have gone at a MUCH faster pace than that one at just 8.5?

That's a good point. The 6fs in 1:11 is very solid.

[dalakhani]

Rupert-

Certainly not taking sides here but couldn't his reasoning for betting against the speed have been more because of quality and have less to do with pace? And if that were the case, wouldn't the reasonable fractions be of little importance?

[The Indomitable DrugS]

The 4th quarter mile - of the five quarters in that race - was in 26.11 seconds.

Considering the speed of the track and the quality of the four speeds - they all would have performed significantly better through that stage if the pace wasn't very solid and contested.

The speeds who chased First Dude (who refused to settle) - were all out of horse after six furlongs.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Rupert-

Certainly not taking sides here but couldn't his reasoning for betting against the speed have been more because of quality and have less to do with pace? And if that were the case, wouldn't the reasonable fractions be of little importance?

Andy was on Steve's show this week talking about the race. He was asked about the race and he basically said that Zenyatta's performance was a little better than he expected but that it was not that big of a surprise based on the way the race was run and that people should not be that impressed that she came from so far back because it was actually an advantage for her to be over 20 lengths back.

So I was simply asking him if he would have predicted the speed horses would totally quit and Zenyatta would come flying if he knew that First Dude would be leading by a length in :47. I think it was a fair question but he obviously didn't because he refuses to answer it.