Ride on Normandy Invasion

[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.