Ride on Normandy Invasion

[docicu3]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I don't think it was a bad ride. He just wasn't good enough

Chuck

The game has all these tech advances, albeit for the fans, over the last few years with innovations like Trakus to make a race easier to follow. Is there nothing on these massive scoreboards for these jocks to see or in some way hear the splits for the big races on a day like yesterday.

Is a glance at 22.1, 45.1 or 109.4 on these huge tote boards completely out of the question given the chaos of a 19 horse field. I realize the jocks are supposed to have a decent clock in their heads or does it not matter once a suicide pace is set you can't slow'em down and expect to kick it in gear at the top of the stretch. The horse doesn't exactly come with a gear shift.....

[cmorioles]

He clearly moved too early, not sure how that is even a debate. I'm sure judging whether a pace is fast is suicidal is not an easy thing to do, but he judged wrong. At worst, he was the second best horse in the race.

[tjfla]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

He clearly moved too early, not sure how that is even a debate. I'm sure judging whether a pace is fast is suicidal is not an easy thing to do, but he judged wrong. At worst, he was the second best horse in the race.

Exactly,Castellano saw Oxbow go and went with him. He waits another second or 2 and he is 2nd easy.

Golden Soul I think killed everyone's ticket. I had him 3/4 on all of mine

[NTamm1215]

These are his updated PPs after yesterday. If you're arguing that he didn't move too early, you're wrong.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

These are his updated PPs after yesterday. If you're arguing that he didn't move too early, you're wrong.

You know I agree, but PPs at 10f look a little different and can be deceiving. You are shown the 4f/1m instead of 4f/6f calls.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

These are his updated PPs after yesterday. If you're arguing that he didn't move too early, you're wrong.

I don't agree that you can say without reservation that it cost him 2nd.

He is out of a Boston Harbor mare. IMO he can't get 1 1/4. He was almost 9 lengths behind a suicidal pace at the half and still 5 lengths back at the 3/4's. If the speed horses last a little longer than no one is saying anything about moving too early. Let's not forget that he was on the rail and would have been directly behind the horses who finished up the track if he hadn't moved outside. The rest of his trip outside of the supposed premature move was almost perfect.

You'll get a chance to watch him lose ground again in the stretch in the Belmont

[Cannon Shell]

I hear now that he won't be running again until Saratoga. Maybe ever.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I hear now that he won't be running again until Saratoga. Maybe ever.

that kind of news used to surprise.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I don't agree that you can say without reservation that it cost him 2nd.

Of course you can't say it without reservation. But using breeding as the reason is laughable.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Of course you can't say it without reservation. But using breeding as the reason is laughable.

Really? So breeding doesn't play a role in horses ability to run a distance of ground? Really?

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Of course you can't say it without reservation. But using breeding as the reason is laughable.

modern breeding for distance has pretty much lost its relevance in handicapping. A horse like Beholder would have been an auto-toss in a race like the Oaks 30 years ago.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I don't agree that you can say without reservation that it cost him 2nd.

He is out of a Boston Harbor mare. IMO he can't get 1 1/4. He was almost 9 lengths behind a suicidal pace at the half and still 5 lengths back at the 3/4's. If the speed horses last a little longer than no one is saying anything about moving too early. Let's not forget that he was on the rail and would have been directly behind the horses who finished up the track if he hadn't moved outside. The rest of his trip outside of the supposed premature move was almost perfect.

You'll get a chance to watch him lose ground again in the stretch in the Belmont

With all due respect, this is nonsense.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

With all due respect, this is nonsense.

Of course because surely you and CJ have all the answers and no one elses opinion means anything. Of course it is easy to believe in absolutes when there is little chance to be proven wrong.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

These are his updated PPs after yesterday. If you're arguing that he didn't move too early, you're wrong.

I don't see how this negates Port Conway Lane's argument; namely that Normandy Invasion's "early move" was more a case of other horses backing up than Normandy Invasion making a move.

Looking at the splits posted by Port Conway Lane, that argument makes sense to me. Is there an error in PCL's splits?

If the splits are correct, then NI's 3rd quarter mile, 23:89, was slower than 8 other horses's. NI's 4th quarter mile, 25:48, was slower than 7 other horses's.

Also, exactly which part of Cannon Shell's post was nonsense? If you are claiming that running a blistering 23:89 3rd quarter is what ruined Normandy Invasion's chances, when 8 other horses ran faster 3rd quarters including the first 3 finishers, then that makes no sense to me.

The fact that both you and cmorioles agree on this gives me pause. I just wish you'd make a clearer case for it.

--Dunbar

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

I don't see how this negates Port Conway Lane's argument; namely that Normandy Invasion's "early move" was more a case of other horses backing up than Normandy Invasion making a move.

Looking at the splits posted by Port Conway Lane, that argument makes sense to me. Is there an error in PCL's splits?

If the splits are correct, then NI's 3rd quarter mile, 23:89, was slower than 8 other horses's. NI's 4th quarter mile, 25:48, was slower than 7 other horses's.

Also, exactly which part of Cannon Shell's post was nonsense? If you are claiming that running a blistering 23:89 3rd quarter is what ruined Normandy Invasion's chances, when 8 other horses ran faster 3rd quarters including the first 3 finishers, then that makes no sense to me.

The fact that both you and cmorioles agree on this gives me pause. I just wish you'd make a clearer case for it.

--Dunbar

It is also deceiving looking at running position in a 19 horse field. Moving from 12th to 7th looks normal in a race with a 12 horse field, but he gained five positions into the teeth of a brutal pace between the 1/4 mile and 1/2 mile calls, with 3/4 mile still to run.

That move troubles me more than the one where the others collapsed and he inherited the lead. Nobody was "backing up" during that 1/4 mile. What was the hurry?

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

I don't see how this negates Port Conway Lane's argument; namely that Normandy Invasion's "early move" was more a case of other horses backing up than Normandy Invasion making a move.

Looking at the splits posted by Port Conway Lane, that argument makes sense to me. Is there an error in PCL's splits?

If the splits are correct, then NI's 3rd quarter mile, 23:89, was slower than 8 other horses's. NI's 4th quarter mile, 25:48, was slower than 7 other horses's.

Also, exactly which part of Cannon Shell's post was nonsense? If you are claiming that running a blistering 23:89 3rd quarter is what ruined Normandy Invasion's chances, when 8 other horses ran faster 3rd quarters including the first 3 finishers, then that makes no sense to me.

The fact that both you and cmorioles agree on this gives me pause. I just wish you'd make a clearer case for it.

--Dunbar

The running line overstates his move, as CJ pointed out. I posted it more for a reference point.

You have to put into context where horses are when comparing their individual 1/4 times in any race, especially a 10f race. Yes, there were horses who ran faster 3rd quarters than Normandy Invasion. However, they were behind him at that point. Most were well behind him.

Combine Normandy Invasion's 2nd two quarters and you'll see he went significantly faster than any other horse in the field.

This was not a situation like 2010 when the field came back to the pack rapidly. Castellano, who has been prone to wildly premature moves, pushed the button too soon, and negated his mount's best weapon, his ability to finish.

A more patient ride would have greatly helped his chances.

[Calzone Lord]

My handicapping and betting approach is focused on watching all races with +20 or faster and -12 or slower paces.

I'd have zero bet backs and four bet againsts coming out of this race.

None of the speed horses ran well enough to merit automatic bet back status.

Orb, Golden Soul, Revolutionary, and Mylute would all go into stable mail as bet againsts next time.

Mylute followed Orb the whole way around and finished 3.75 lengths back. Both had clear wide trips.

Revolutionary followed Golden Soul until the top of the stretch. Both had clear inside trips, though Revo was bottled up with a lot of run going into the turn.

All of them raced more than 18 lengths back and benefited from the meltdown scenario.

Java's War was the only horse positioned 15th or worse, who failed to have a top 5 finish, but I don't put a horse like him on the list because he can show up in a Turf or Synthetic race next time.

The way I judge a +20 or faster pace is no different if it's the 3rd race at Emerald Downs or the Kentucky Derby.