Officially Crap

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Well,the track record for this new surface is 121 4/5.It used to be 119 4/5.I would expect it to maybe go down a full second when top sprinters run(120 4/5.) About a full second slower than the old dirt surface. You have to ask yourself whether you think that Prevue stakes was a good one.I think it was.It was run in 122.42..Last year Your Tent or Mine ran it 1.42 seconds quicker,and in 2004 Declans Moon's time was .68 seconds quicker than Belgravia's effort was.So,if you think Belgravia's effort was as good as Declan's Moon,then this Cushion track is .68 seconds slower than the old surface.If you think Belgravia's performance was equal to Your Tent or Mine's performance,then this surface is 1.42 seconds slower than the old surface.If you take an average of the 2,it would be 1 second slower.So, the girls ran a 124.13 today on this cushion track.That would be anywhere from a 123.45 to as low as a 122.71 on the old track that people are use to judging West Coast Times by.If you think the track is 1 second slower,then the girls ran an equivalent of a 123.13 in the Moccasin. No Bull Baby won the Moccasin in 2004 by running a 123.06,and last year,Private World ran a 122 1/5 in the Moccasin.These times were both about 1.3 seconds lower than their male counterparts.QLM ran 1.71 seconds slower than Belgravia.So,the boys ran about .4 seconds quicker than the normal 1.30 seconds that they beat the female counterparts by.You can blame that on QLM,or give credit to Belgravia,or a little both.The fact is that this 1:24 for 7f is not the normal West Coast 1:24,because the track is probably a full second slower than it was with the dirt surface.As far as what you are use to seeing,the girls ran about a 1:23.Maybe a little less or more,but the track is somewhere between a half second,and a second and a half slower.Go back and look at the tape.The favorite is slowing down some,but that isn't a death march that would be timed in 1:24 on the old surface.Like I said,As far as the West Coast times you are used to it probably is about a 1:23(or about what No Bull Baby ran.)Not great,but not the maggot slow time that these haters are comfortable pinning on QLM.

The point isn't Quick Little Miss against the clock, it's Quick Little Miss against the other seven-furlong races run on Sunday.. Your argument doesn't explain why she ran slower than $32,000 claimers and barely quicker than the bottom-level 2-year-olds..

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

The point isn't Quick Little Miss against the clock, it's Quick Little Miss against the other seven-furlong races run on Sunday.. Your argument doesn't explain why she ran slower than $32,000 claimers and barely quicker than the bottom-level 2-year-olds..

In the 7th race,the 32k claimer you speak of ran 22.50 45.18 109.81 123.23........Nowhere on his past performances do you see him clear on a lead while going 22.50.Nowhere in that form will you see him clear by 2 lengths in a 45.18.Court said he knew he had the speed of the race,and took advantage of it.The other speed in the race(#1 horse) pulled up before he could put a midrace challenge in.Don't get me wrong,Sunday Times ran a hell of a race,but the fact is he usually is hassled on the front,and today he suddenly was clear to relax up front .He ran his best.I have no problem saying he ran what we normally would call a 1:22 out here.Even claimers (and this used to be a 50k claimer,not 32k)can run fast when they get their way,and are trained by Oneil.Older males(even some claimers) can often run faster than 2 year old fillies.Of more importance to me is the 4th race where 2 year old maiden claiming fillies ran 124.67 (as compared to the 124.13 in the Moccasin Stakes.)

..........the stakes 21.73 44.70 110.28 124.13

the maiden claimer 22.37 45.99 1:11.56 1:24.67

When I watch the maiden race,the 1st thing I noticed is that there are 3 horses near the lead.They separate themselves by a half length each(with the race winner calmly sitting in 2nd(half length in front n' behind 1 horse each.)No stress whatsoever here.For whatever reason the horses in 1st n' 3rd fall off the pace as if sht while running a simple 45.99.David Flores now asks his horse (full of run n' cruising alone on the inherited lead) to now run.He of course has plenty of run.They make a run for it,and hold off the favorite at the end.These 2 horses are 6 lengths clear of the others.The relatively slow half mile of about 46 meant these 2 really only had to run 3 f.They jogged the 1st 4 f.Under those conditions,horses can sprint for home pretty fast.Compare that to the high pressure situation that the horses in the Moccasin were under.They ran a very fast half mile for 2 year old fillies.Even the winner ran much faster for 4f than she normally does.So,she wasn't taking it easy back there.She would have been 15 lengths back if this was true.These jocks rode these fillies like they were running 6f(well over a second faster than those 2 maiden claimers did for 6f.) The stakes fillies ran the 1st part of the 7f very fast,and the maiden claimers ran the 2nd part of the 7f fairly quickly(after their initial jog.)Can we agree that it is easier to do it the way the maiden claimers did(4f in 45.99 and 46:1,)and then run home fast? The stakes fillies had a war all the way,and the maiden claimers only had a war trying to get to the wire.Still the stakes fillies beat them by over half a second.The dynamics of the races matter(especially at the 7f distance.)Like I said,the Moccasin was not much slower than it was in previous years(adjusted for the slower track.)The winner ran about what No Bull Baby did in 2004.Did Solis not gas his filly from the gate(as if running a 5 f race?) Hardly the recipe needed to relax and run a good 7f time.The winner didn't relax out of the gate.She showed much more pace than usual.She was certainly not distanced like she has been.I was very surprised to see her show that much run early,but maybe they are trying for that.She would have won much easier if she was the 15 lengths off that she normally would be(from this scorching half mile.)I can see that I will get odds again on her.She will have to burn you one n' all in the Starlit.Game on.

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

The point isn't Quick Little Miss against the clock, it's Quick Little Miss against the other seven-furlong races run on Sunday.. Your argument doesn't explain why she ran slower than $32,000 claimers and barely quicker than the bottom-level 2-year-olds..

I don't mean to sound like another poster who rails against polytrack vs talent, but......
Look, there isn't any way in the world that Jump On In isn't more talented that Quick Little Miss.
If someone said you had won a lottery, and could have the earnings only(so we can take residual value and pedigree out of the equation) of either Quick Little Miss or Jump On In for the rest of their careers, noone in their right mind is not gonna take Jump On In.

Fact is this race is just another example of what I, and many others, have been railing about in regards to these surfaces. Its not even that soem relish it, its more like some detest them less than others.
They crawled the race, and the winner detested it less than the rest of em did.
If anybody wants to take the winner vs Jump On in at SA in the upcoming meet lemme know, I'll take all the action you wanna throw at me.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

JOEY,just remember one thing.Look at the race at the top of the stretch. QLM can see this Jump On In draw off.She can easily see this.Listen to Stauffer say "SHE COMES ROLLING OFF THE TOP OF THE TURN...JUMP ON IN IS SUDDENLY 3 LENGTHS IN FRONT." How many 2 year old fillies got the heart to go run down a filly that just drew off in an impressive move? Yea,the favorite got tired late ,but you will see that QLM was trying very hard when it looked like she couldn't catch this horse. This is not the norm.