|
|
 |
|
#61
10-09-2006, 09:36 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
You are right he probably gave 99% effort. 
|
|
#62
10-09-2006, 09:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
1a. If that jockey is Gary Stevens, discard everything he has to say...
|
|
#63
10-09-2006, 09:40 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
http://www.facebook.com/cajungator26
|
|
#64
10-09-2006, 09:41 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#65
10-09-2006, 10:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#66
10-09-2006, 10:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Thank you.
|
|
#67
10-09-2006, 10:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
OK, Joel, you asked for it. First I will deal with the stupidity of your earlier post where you suggested the Beyer figs were meaningless because in your opinion, whether right or wrong, the horse did not give a maximum effort, Anybody that understands speed figures, which you apparantly don't because of this comment on your part, realizes they are nothing more than a numerical analyisis of how a horse ran on that given day....whether they are Beyers, Ragozins or Jerry Browns. It is up to a horseplayer, or analyst, to decide if they felt the horse could have run faster. The number is based on the final time of that race. I am shocked you didn't realize this. Secondly, your elitist comment that Ragozins are somehow better because they are more expensive is really correlated to your opinion I dealt with in my first paragraph. You obviously don't understand speed figures. Personally, I don't like Ragozin's numbers, or the Thorographs for that matter, because I do not believe in their use of certain variables. I don't like them because, unlike you, I actually understand them. I think weight is meaningless and they don't. Now, maybe I'm wrong, but for my handicapping my feeling about weight works. I believe that the fact that the Fall Highweight produces the same relative base numbers year in and year out substantiates my opinion. If others disagree....fine. I also strongly disagree with them adding ground loss to their numbers. First of all, and probably most importantly, I think ground loss is deceptive and many times horses making wide moves are getting better trips than horses that save ground. For this reason, in addition to possible track biases, I believe adding ground loss to figures perverts and effectively ruins the numbers. This is why I prefer a base number like the Beyer figures, as since I do extensive trip analysis, I can extrapolate from a base figure how I believe the horse actually ran. I do not denigrate others for liking the Ragozins or Thorographs, and have great intellectual respect for them, I just don't like them personally. And, finally, since you decided to make this personal with your " you obviously love Mr. Beyer " comment, let me just detail how lame that is....along with your idiotic addition " If I had a nickel for everytime he was wrong in his columns I'd be more rich a lot moreso than most any other handicapper's columns I have read on consistent basis...". Yes, Andy Beyer is a friend of mine, this is established, but if you think that is why I like his numbers then you have paid zero attention to my posts. I form my own opinions, I respect some opinions that I don't agree with, but I don't buy somebody's logic because I happen to like them personally and your suggestion of such is insulting...which is funny coming from you who whined recently about somebody unfortunately taking comments in an argument personally. This underhanded comment from you was nothing if not personal. Am I mad? No...but I think you're an ass for making that comment. Not as much of an ass, of course, as you are for the other quote from you. Sorry if you fail to see Andy Beyer's contributions to this industry, but quite frankly, I would love to see your list of others who have contributed more and frankly from someone like you that comment just smacks of pathetic jealousy. Last edited by blackthroatedwind : 10-09-2006 at 10:57 PM.
|
|
#68
10-09-2006, 11:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
<First I will deal with the stupidity of your earlier post where you suggested the Beyer figs were meaningless because in your opinion, whether right or wrong, the horse did not give a maximum effort, Anybody that understands speed figures, which you apparantly don't because of this comment on your part, realizes they are nothing more than a numerical analyisis of how a horse ran on that given day....whether they are Beyers, Ragozins or Jerry Browns. It is up to a horseplayer, or analyst, to decide if they felt the horse could have run faster. The number is based on the final time of that race. I am shocked you didn't realize this.> How does the betting public understand that the horse didn't give his all which equated to the beyer fig on any given performance then? It doesn't say it in the Form and people can't watch and take record of EVERY single horse race run in North America... <Secondly, your elitist comment that Ragozins are somehow better because they are more expensive is really correlated to your opinion I dealt with in my first paragraph. You obviously don't understand speed figures. Personally, I don't like Ragozin's numbers, or the Thorographs for that matter, because I do not believe in their use of certain variables. I don't like them because, unlike you, I actually understand them. I think weight is meaningless and they don't. Now, maybe I'm wrong, but for my handicapping my feeling about weight works. I believe that the fact that the Fall Highweight produces the same relative base numbers year in and year out substantiates my opinion. If others disagree....fine. I also strongly disagree with them adding ground loss to their numbers. First of all, and probably most importantly, I think ground loss is deceptive and many times horses making wide moves are getting better trips than horses that save ground. For this reason, in addition to possible track biases, I believe adding ground loss to figures perverts and effectively ruins the numbers. This is why I prefer a base number like the Beyer figures, as since I do extensive trip analysis, I can extrapolate from a base figure how I believe the horse actually ran. I do not denigrate others for liking the Ragozins or Thorographs, and have great intellectual respect for them, I just don't like them personally.> I specifically liked all of your personal little jabs you added in the above paragraph...classy touch...as for loss of ground and weight, I believe the opposite that you do and that is why I'm a proponent of Rags...better system IMO....all good claim trainers claim off of it because they understand it is the most acurate system for identifying the fastest horses....Dutrow, Amoss, Cole Norman, Asmussen, etc....Bill Hartak told me once that anybody who doesn't belive that the rail is the shortest way around is an idiot..it was one of those Yogi Berra-ish old-time comments that on the surface is too obvious, but then I thought of how many top races he road in his lifetime and I began to understand what he really meant....loss of ground MATTERS....watch track and field events and you'll see there is a reason the runners gravitate to the bottom of the track....as for weight, my theory is that they are 1300-pound animals with 115-pound jockeys on their backs...I just am not one to cry over 8 or so pounds...hell, you could strap eight more pounds to me and let me run and I would barely notice it.....just a poor argument to me... <And, finally, since you decided to make this personal with your " you obviously love Mr. Beyer " comment, let me just detail how lame that is....along with your idiotic addition " If I had a nickel for everytime he was wrong in his columns I'd be more rich a lot moreso than most any other handicapper's columns I have read on consistent basis...". Yes, Andy Beyer is a friend of mine, this is established, but if you think that is why I like his numbers then you have paid zero attention to my posts. I form my own opinions, I respect some opinions that I don't agree with, but I don't buy somebody's logic because I happen to like them personally and your suggestion of such is insulting...which is funny coming from you who whined recently about somebody unfortunately taking comments in an argument personally. This underhanded comment from you was nothing if not personal. Am I mad? No...but I think you're an ass for making that comment. Not as much of an ass, of course, as you are for the other quote from you. Sorry if you fail to see Andy Beyer's contributions to this industry, but quite frankly, I would love to see your list of others who have contributed more and frankly from someone like you that comment just smacks of pathetic jealousy.> I find it funny and borderline hypocritical that you have a problem with persoanl comments now, especially after your meltdown last week  You know what you're doing...don't patronize me..shame on you for that....my comments were knowhere in the same stratosphere of personal atttacks as yours were....and you continue with these little threads directed persnoally at me with your little subliminal agendas....I can't tell you how disapointed I am...I have never directed a post towards somebody trying to evoke a negative reaction like you and other posters do on a frequent basis....must be a New Yorker thing or something....you guys are tough to figure out...just make your posts and state your opinions and leave it at that....your insecure comments give off an obvious radiance of your character and I've heard you were better than that.... BTW, don't dislike Andy Beyer in any way...I don't even know the guy!!! but when he tels the world that because of his scientific method of understanding horses perfromances that Invasor was way too slow to win the Pimlico Special and be a top hanidcap horse in America - comon, man...how much credability do you deserve?...He never retracted it either.... I'm sure he's a great man and actually, I've talked to people who I really respect in the industry who know him and have validated that....don't make it sound like I'm his enemy....I was just voicing my opinion that his Speed figures are for the leyman horse players and not to be taking litterally for the serious players and horse claimers, etc......
|
|
#69
10-09-2006, 11:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Joel
I love this comment by you....
" How does the betting public understand that the horse didn't give his all which equated to the beyer fig on any given performance then? It doesn't say it in the Form and people can't watch and take record of EVERY single horse race run in North America..." For you to suggest that the betting public that uses Beyer figures doesn't, and somehow shouldn't, understand what they are based on shows a shocking lack of knowledge on your part. Who knew you thought so many people, who it actually seems are more knowledgable than you at least on this subject, were clueless. I am impressed that you would continue to stubbornly try and defend your position on this one. And then you use something Bill Hartack said to defend the sheets use of the wides??? That's great. Who knew he was a great handicapper too. The simple fact is I explained why I don't agree with their use of the " wides ", and I also said I respect their numbers intellectually but just happen to disagree with them, and the best you can do is come up with a quote from a JOCKEY!!! and tell me that I should respect them because some trainers use them? Pardon me, but I will stand by my analysis over some trainers who's handicapping skills I know nothing about. I do know that I would like to specifically be at least one of those you mentioned's bookmaker. I don't " have a problem " with your personal comments...I was just pointing out the hypocracy in your making them considering what you whined about last week. That's all. I actually found your's amusing because of their simplicity, inaccuracy, and transparency. I don't care, and nor would I guess Beyer would, whether you like him or not. I was, once again, just pointing out the silliness of your comments. I am still waiting for that other list you mentioned. Joel, I didn't bring the Beyer figs into this discussion, you did...and in a snide way. I am just trying to clean up the mess you created. God knows I wouldn't want some of those sadly uninformed people that you referred to in the initial quote I used to continue to misuse ( and misunderstand ) his numbers.
|
|
#70
10-09-2006, 11:54 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#71
10-10-2006, 12:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#72
10-10-2006, 12:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
okay andy, I'll ask your permission before I post from now on Mr. derbytrail-meistro ...since you love disecting other people's posts so much....we again obviously have a difference of opinion, which is, by the way, not against the law...I'm confident in my opinions as I'm sure you are confident in yours....but your agendas are the hilarious thing to me...
|
|
#73
10-10-2006, 12:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I enjoy the disagreements. I also think while you have an enormous amount of knowledge, along with an enthusiasm that I respect and wish many others had, that sometimes you venture into territory, such as this one, where you aren't as knowledgable as others. You know WAY more about breeding than I know now or will ever know ( in all likelihood ) and I certainly don't argue with you in those situations from my obvious point of weakness. However, I have spent a great deal of my life thinking about some of the things discussed in this thread, and I feel I am, in this case, arguing from strength. I have had these same arguments with Jerry Brown on many occasions. There was little need for you to suggest I have an agenda, though I am curious as to what you think it may be, as my only real " agenda " ( so to speak ) in this argument is to clarify some points that I felt were erroneous. If you think it is some need to defend any criticism of Beyer, while I won't say you are totally wrong, I defend him as I do all my friends when I feel they are being UNFAIRLY ( or inaccurately ) criticized. I am guessing you would do the same if you felt that was the case with one of your friends here. By the way, it's spelled maestro.
|
|
#74
10-10-2006, 12:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
[quote=Dixie Porter]
Quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wow, a defense from Dixie! What an honor. Done with me??????? Surely not, as you will continue to make snide comments and take cheap shots until you are inevitably banned from here as you have been from every other horse racing message board on the internet. By the way, feel free to ask any trainers if I ever bother them. Oh, I forgot, you only know trainers in your mind. You are hilarious. Thanks for the entertainment.
|
|
#75
10-10-2006, 01:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
Linear Mode
