You know, there is no intent to say the figure methodology is wrong in regard to Bellamania. TGraph had to make a figure. They had to make a figure with what they had. What they had was a wicked surface, a fast raw time and a big winning margin.

Ideally you have:

1. The race time
2. consistent efforts by the also rans
and
3. A big enough sample to create a comparative variant (Though I'm really not sure Tgraph caluculates variants per se. But I keep my eye on them in the Form and after looking at variants enough, questionable variants make themselves apparent, like the one on Wood day.)

Unfortunately in regard to the Wood, Tgraph did not have number 2 or 3. They are in a slight bind for the Travers in that they dont have number 3. Anyway, they did the best they could in the circumstances.

Now, when Tgraph said Smarty Jones ran a -3.3 in the Rebel they had a much stronger case based on triangulation. The time was not only fast, but it held up as fast on comparison to the other 2 turn events and compared to the efforts of Purge and the others.

For the Wood, there just wasn't an abundance of corroborative data. A number had to be made and they made their best good faith calcuation as to what it was. Its not rocket science.

Anyway, I'd be very careful with future books on this horse. Even if you still insist he ran a big Wood number. It is still a one timer and it was earned in ideal conditions.