Im not JB but I did see and carefully listen to Mark Hopkins on Tom & Nick's show on Sunday. Some personal observations while I held myself back from calling into the show. I'd love to see the "extensive resarch" Mark mentioned and then did not produce or elaborate on which leads him and Beyer to conclude that weight does not play a factor in the outcome of races. He must have been in a coma 2 weeks ago when Roses in May won the Whitney and when Pleasantly Perfect ran in The San Diego or when Colonial Colony ran in the Styephen Foster. Just to name a few recent handicaps where weight likely played a factor in the outcome. Racing history is littered with examples of weight likely being a factor. The real question is how much of a factor will weight likely play in the race you are presently handicapping. In fairness, what Mark Hopkins actually said was that weight as a factor in the outcome of races was "subjective" and then he went on to say they have done "extensive studies" that as far as I know have never been published. He then went on to dismiss the ground loss issue by making the statement that because some horses actually "benefit" from wide trips (for various reasons) therefor ground loss should not be factored into figure making. The show was entertaining as always and reinforced my conviction in the accuracy, superiority and the model used to make TG figs. Interestingly, Cary Fotias of EquiForm made almost the same statements regarding ground loss and weight just the previous week (or the week before that) on this same show. The most interesting part of the show was listening to Mark Hopkins discuss his confusion with the reason(s) some trainers have recently incresaed their win percentages significantly. Implying that because HE couldn't figure out why some trainers are winning more races than previously something must not be on the level. His trainers' success however is of course easily understood. Other trainers successes are confusing to him.
Phil